Female Genital Mutilation Bill

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Rendell of Babergh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill

Read a third time.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Roper.)

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I stumbled across this Bill by accident, when it came to its Second Reading a week or two ago. Having come down to see what the Bill was about, I became concerned on two points. They may be thought quibbles by some, but they are not quibbles to me.
	First, in the speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on Second Reading, which I actually missed, although I read it in Hansard, he listed a considerable number of items that had been looted from the museum in Baghdad. However, the Bill does not really deal with museums; it deals with other monuments. That worried me a little bit, as museums are a very likely place in which to look for objects of the sort with which the Bill is mainly concerned.
	Normally, I would have tabled amendments that we could have discussed in Committee, thereby clearing the whole thing up and perhaps satisfying me that I was mistaken—which is sometimes likely. However, on Second Reading, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey reminded us that the Bill was faced with a very short timetable, and that to table amendments that changed the Bill might well have the effect of killing it. I did not want that to happen, because the Bill, despite my misgivings, is worthy and should pass in the fullness of time.
	That was my first quibble. My second quibble is one close to my heart. It refers to the definition of objects in the Bill, which reads:
	"'Cultural object' means an object of historical, architectural or archaeological interest".
	That form of words has been used for a long time in Bills of this nature. However, as the House will be well aware, I have a longstanding interest in engineering. Oddly enough—

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, would the noble Lord mind if I intervened briefly on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition? We actually had a very good debate on all the issues at Second Reading. A number of noble Lords spoke and a number of issues were aired, to which I believe the Government responded fully. That is why no noble Lords have tabled amendments. I wonder if that helps to satisfy the noble Lord.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am always delighted to be rebuked by the noble Baroness. It puts me in my place, but I shall continue none the less, as briefly as possible.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend will recognise that the Bill has been thoroughly debated with the appropriate Minister present—my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He replied to the debate when the issues were raised and put the government position, which is that we wish the Bill well. As the noble Baroness said, all the issues were discussed at the proper time, at Second Reading—and some of the points that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon is putting forward are clearly Second Reading points. There was also a Committee stage.
	We had no inkling that what is normally a straightforward Motion with a Private Member's Bill, that the Bill do now pass, would be the subject of a Second Reading debate, with quite fundamental issues re-emerging. Although we are always delighted to hear any contribution that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon makes at any stage, he will recognise that there is no way in which the mover of the Bill, the Government or the Opposition intend to respond to any of his points at this ridiculously late stage.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should like to get on with this and get it over and done with. It will not take long at all.
	I wrote to my noble friend Lord McIntosh and explained my worries, and I am told that I shall receive a reply in due course, though not in time for this debate. I discussed the matter with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, verbally, and informed my noble friend that I intended to raise the matter as briefly as possible, with the help of the House, at this stage of the Bill. I shall take only a minute, and patience is always a virtue.
	I drew attention to the fact that there have been precedents for the definition, which noble Lords have no doubt forgotten because of all the interruptions. I reminded my noble friend that the definition had been changed in the British Waterways Act in the 1990s, in the Environment Act in the 1990s, and in the National Heritage Act, also in the 1990s. The changes were at my instigation, I am happy to say. My noble friend Lord McIntosh reminded me of something I had forgotten—that he had accepted an amendment from me that changed the definition in much later legislation.
	The precedents which I just quoted define these objects as objects of historical, architectural, engineering or archaeological interest. All I hope to do today is to remind the department that that precedent should be followed in future, so that I will not be obliged to raise this issue again. It may not bore the House when I raise it, as I have been doing for about 15 years, but it certainly bores me.
	On Question, Bill passed.

Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Donoughue.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Amendment of Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996]:

Viscount Bledisloe: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, leave out from beginning of line 18 to end of line 15 on page 2 and insert—
	"2A REGULATIONS
	(1) There shall be an Authority, appointed in accordance with the provisions of Schedule I.
	(2) The Authority may—
	(a) recognise any body as the proper authority for making from time to time a code in respect of the normal and humane manner of conducting any activity in connection with wild mammals or one or more species of wild mammal;
	(b) after proper consideration, approve a code made by any body so recognised as the proper code for regulating the conduct of the activity or part of the activity in respect of which that body was recognised.
	(3) Where the Authority has approved any code it shall submit that code to the Secretary of State.
	(4) Where the Secretary of State receives from the Authority any code he may either—
	(a) make a regulation recognising that code, or
	(b) write to the Authority setting out the reasons why he does not consider that code to be suitable for recognition.
	(5) Any regulation recognising a code shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(6) The Authority shall not exercise any of the powers conferred by this section, unless it is satisfied that it has, or that provision has been made to provide to it, sufficient monies to enable it to exercise such powers.
	(7) At the end of section 3 of that Act, there shall be inserted—
	"and "recognised code" means a code from time to time submitted by the Authority under section 2A(3) and recognised by the Secretary of State under section 2A(4) and (5) hereof."

Viscount Bledisloe: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. I shall also, if I may, come clean from the outset. This is an insider's amendment, put forward with the approval and encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I have merely tried to assist him in drafting. He has therefore given me the task of moving and speaking to these amendments, to try to explain their technicalities.
	The Bill renders it an offence to cause undue suffering to any wild mammal. However, it provides that it shall be a defence if the act is done,
	"in the normal and humane conduct of a lawful and customary activity".
	There are, of course, many different wild mammals and very many different customary activities in relation to those. The Bill covers a scope vastly wider than, let us say, just hunting foxes or other animals. It covers rabbit catching and control, grey squirrel and rat control, minks, coypus, moles and so on and so forth.
	An important feature of the Bill is that, for as many activities as possible, there should be a recognised code establishing what is in the normal and humane conduct of that activity, so that it is a defence to show that one acted in accordance with the relevant code. There being many activities, there will inevitably have to be a number of codes, and different bodies and people will be appropriate ones to draft each code. In its present form the Bill empowers the Secretary of State by statutory instrument to recognise or set out code-making bodies for each activity as he sees fit. However, once a body is so recognised, it then produces a code that, without more ado, determines what is a defence.
	Three problems have emerged in relation to the Bill as it now stands. First, it may be difficult, and would I think be burdensome, to expect the Secretary of State to find and to establish a suitable code-making body for each activity. I note that the Minister nods at the suggestion that it would be a burden on his department.
	Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has forcefully pointed out that it was not acceptable for codes which are themselves to provide a defence to be subject to no parliamentary code. In its report the committee said:
	"Although the regulations"—
	made by statutory instrument—
	"may recognise or establish approving bodies, they cannot provide for any direct control over the content of the codes, nor does the bill itself make any such provision. Accordingly, the effect of the delegation is that the content of a code which will determine whether or not a person has committed a criminal offence will be subject to no Parliamentary control, even though the regulations dealing with the approving body will be subject to affirmative procedure. We consider this to be inappropriate delegation".
	Thirdly, that committee also said that it disapproved as a concept of the Bill of giving the Secretary of State a delegated power to create tribunals to deal with cases under the Act.
	I hope that Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 deal with all those points. First, they completely drop the tribunal proposal so that that difficulty goes. Secondly, they provide for an authority established and set out in Schedule 1, which appears in Amendment No. 4. Once that authority is established, it is for that authority and not for government to decide which is the appropriate body to draw up a particular code for any particular relevant activity or activities. If it relates to how rats should properly be killed, obviously it would be a different body from one that dealt with rabbit catching or a form of hunting. Once the authority has appointed an appropriate body in relation to a particular activity, that body then drafts a code and submits the code to the authority. The authority then decides whether it approves of the code. If it does, it submits it to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State likes the code, he lays before Parliament a statutory instrument to recognise the code. I hope that that entirely answers the point rightly raised by the committee on delegated legislation in that the code will have no effect unless and until it is approved by statutory instrument.
	If, on the other hand, the Secretary of State is unhappy with the code, or with any part of it, he refers it back to the authority and explains his reasons for not being satisfied with it. Thus, under the Bill as it would be if amended, the code is subject to parliamentary control as required by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Secretary of State is relieved of all the tasks imposed upon him by the Bill as it stands, save that he has to appoint the chairman of the authority and decide whether the code should be approved.
	There is a central authority selecting the various code-makers and vetting their codes. It is to be hoped that having a central authority vetting the codes will produce a degree of uniformity and of approach which will render both the presentation and the content of the codes user friendly. It is hoped that the central authority will follow a common layout pattern and wording in various codes.
	I hope that that explains these amendments which I venture to suggest would be a considerable improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 or 3.

Lord Mancroft: I support the noble Viscount's amendments. In doing so I declare my interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance—an organisation which has more than a passing interest in these matters. I congratulate both the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the noble Viscount on the work that they have done on the Bill. The proposed amendments render the Bill even more useful and satisfactory. I venture to suggest that that is a good example of parties with very different interests coming together for the common good. It is a pity that it does not occur more often.
	These amendments seek to achieve a system of self-regulation with statutory underpinning. I hope that with these difficult matters that will be the way forward in the future. The system of self-regulation with statutory underpinning relates to what the hunting community now does through the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting. In the light of those two innovations over the past two years, I hope that we are moving very slowly in the direction of an overarching wildlife management authority, which is what this country needs and has needed for some time. It is rather a pity that neither the present nor the previous government thought of that. I hope that those innovations are steps in that direction.
	These amendments, if accepted, would enable a system to be established that is flexible enough to be capable of being changed as circumstances change over time. That is what we need. Rigid enforcement is much too difficult in these kind of areas. New knowledge and new science will require changes to be introduced if we are to manage these activities while at the same time preserving the best possible standards of welfare.
	The Bill as originally drafted was rather unsatisfactory. It was bureaucratic for the Secretary of State to be directly involved in drafting codes of practice. However, it is satisfactory for the Secretary of State to have effectively a power of veto over the codes or a power to agree them and give them his stamp of authority. I hope that the Committee will support these amendments.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth spoke at Second Reading. He has asked me to apologise to your Lordships as he is unavoidably absent today. I understand that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 will not be moved if Amendment No. 1 is accepted.
	The Committee should bear in mind that in March 2001 Members of this Chamber made a considerable mistake in believing that self-regulation would gain the public's confidence. I hope that we shall not make that mistake again. I believe that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord in whose names the amendment stands are still under that illusion. I hope that we shall have an authority that is both representative and independent. If that is the case, there might be some possibility of moving forward.
	Self-regulation is still envisaged in Amendments Nos. 1 and 4. I believe that there is still widespread difficulty with that concept throughout the country. I do not agree that the amendments offer the prospect of an overarching wildlife management authority when the proposed authority is so narrowly composed.

Baroness Byford: I support these amendments. I am not entirely happy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, just said. I believe that the movers of these two amendments tried to overcome the problems to which she referred. That is what prompted me to speak. Certainly when we previously discussed the matter some people were concerned about self-regulation. However, I believe that the amendments before us today overcome that problem and give the Government responsibility for approving the code. The Government will appoint the chairman and will be able to question issues when they arise. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but having read the measure through carefully I did not reach the same conclusion as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I hope that the noble Viscount will comment on that matter as I shared his interpretation of the measure rather than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller.

Lord Whitty: As the Committee will recall, at Second Reading I indicated that the Bill had some desirable effects but that the Government had a number of concerns, not all of which are resolved by the amendment that we are discussing or any other amendments before us today. Nevertheless I welcome the principle behind the noble Viscount's amendment. It moves away from what was otherwise pure self-regulation in certain areas. It also establishes an authority which is at arm's length from the Secretary of State in the first instance. Both of those are desirable moves within the context of this Bill.
	However, I have a number of concerns with the amendment. I am concerned most obviously about the composition of the authority. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, the authority is to be representative and independent, I am afraid that the list of members specified in the noble Viscount's amendment does not give the impression of a balanced authority. For example, there is no representation on the part of animal welfare bodies. The movers of the amendment will need to consider whether a more balanced composition would help the progress of the Bill. If it is seen to be unrepresentative, it will appear closer to self-regulation and further away from independent and representative oversight of the areas.
	As the noble Viscount recognised, the Bill will also impose costs, but it is not clear from the Bill where those costs fall for either the activities of the authority or the preparation of the codes.
	On what may be a wider point, it remains unclear which activities overseen by the authority would be covered by the codes of practice, and which would be considered either outside the codes or as lawful and customary activities even though not in conformity with the code. That seems a central dilemma of the early part of the Bill. As drafted, the Bill provides no guidance on the matter. If a code of practice approved by the authority did not cover an activity, that activity could still be defended as customary and lawful. The Bill would have to resolve that ambiguity before it could go on the statute book.
	Nevertheless, the amendment in principle moves the Bill on. It deals with some of the concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee and some of those expressed by the Government at Second Reading.

Lord Donoughue: I would like to thank those who have contributed to the debate, and especially the wide number of bodies consulted in the preparation of the amendment. That has been extremely helpful. We have talked with bodies from much of the countryside and had many talks with representatives of the shooting community, and the amendment meets the concerns raised.
	I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will give a more informed response, but I would be very happy to welcome other appropriate bodies on to the authority. On Report, we will have an opportunity for more bodies to be added. For instance, our shooting friends have suggested some scientific bodies, which seems a very helpful suggestion. I am very open to suggestions on that front. The Minister raised the subject of costs, which has been pursued. I am confident that it would not be a problem. The noble Viscount will speak on the point about what is customary.
	Above all, I completely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about progress towards an overarching wildlife management organisation. There is no doubt that that is deeply required in this country. We have made some progress. I point out to the noble Baroness that such a body would be both representative and independent. It would meet the criteria for which she called.

Viscount Bledisloe: I am very grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken for their support and their helpful criticisms. However, I must confess that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am somewhat disappointed by the reaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I hope that the body is designed to be independent, although of course its composition might be improved.
	The amendment answers the point made by the Delegated Powers Committee, and I am relieved to find that I have satisfied the Committee as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, has not felt it necessary to tell me that I have failed dismally. It is the Government and Parliament who will decide what is an acceptable code, not the bodies themselves. With their knowledge, the bodies will draft them, but if the Minister or Parliament do not like, it a code will not have any effect. Although the initiative comes from the bodies, it is not self-regulation as Parliament has the control and has set up the offence.
	I shall deal with one or two points made by the Minister. He said that there were no animal welfare bodies. The vets might take that a little amiss. I must confess that I had thought that vets were keen on animal welfare. Subject to that, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, of course we would welcome suggestions of further names. However, there must be a limit on numbers. If other names are suggested some bodies may have to double up and make a joint appointment, as is already provided for in one instance, rather than merely enlarging the authority indefinitely.
	Secondly, proposed new subsection (6) is deliberately designed to ensure that there can be no question of costs falling on the public funds. If no one thinks that the authority is sufficiently useful to put up any money for it at all, it will not happen. So far as the costs of the code-making bodies are concerned, as expected, those would be borne by the authority itself. If it does not have enough interest to draft a code, it is not an appropriate body to be appointed to do so.
	On the Minister's third point, I venture to suggest that there is no ambiguity. It is a defence to prove that one's actions are in accordance with either the code or the normal and humane conduct of the activity. It is hoped that a code will be made for most major activities. Some activities, such as moving hedgehogs from remote islands to other places, occur sufficiently seldom not to merit a code. If there is no code, one has to prove the matters in detail or merely fight something on the principle that no undue suffering was caused.
	Whether an activity is sufficiently regular, frequent and customary to merit a code will be for the authority initially to decide, and then for the body invited to make the code to consider whether it feels that it is appropriate to do so. No one can make a body produce a code if it does not want to. Basically, if the Bill becomes law, I would be amazed if the relevant bodies in most of the activities were not very keen to produce a code acceptable to the authority, the Secretary of State and Parliament.
	In the light of that and the helpful comments that have been made, I hope that the Committee will approve the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]

Viscount Bledisloe: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) After section 7 of that Act there shall be inserted—

SCHEDULE

1 (1) The Authority shall consist of—
	(a) a Chairman appointed by the Secretary of State;
	(b) one member nominated by each of the following organisations or group of organisations—
	(i) The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons,
	(ii) The Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
	(iii) The Country Land and Business Association,
	(iv) The National Farmers' Union of England and Wales,
	(v) The Game Conservancy Trust and the British Deer Society jointly,
	(vi) The Council of Hunting Associations,
	(vii) The British Association for Shooting and Conservation,
	(viii) The National Gamekeepers' Organisation,
	(c) up to two further members appointed by the Authority,
	2 (1) Each person shall be appointed for a term of three years, but shall be eligible for reappointment.
	(2) Any vacancy shall be filled by a further appointment made in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
	(3) The power of the Authority to act shall not be affected by any failure by any organisation named in paragraph 1(1)(b) above to nominate a member, or by any casual vacancy in its membership.
	3 (1) If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that an organisation named in paragraph 1(1)(b) above has ceased to exist or is no longer an appropriate organisation to nominate a member of the Authority, he may by regulation made in accordance with section 2A(5) of this Act remove that organisation from paragraph 1(1)(b) above and appoint some other organisation which appears to him to be best fitted to act in lieu of the organisation so removed."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Short title and commencement]:

Viscount Bledisloe: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
	"(1) This Act shall not apply to Scotland."

Viscount Bledisloe: The 1996 Act amended by the Bill applies to Scotland. It appears that, since then, animal welfare is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament, not for us. In the light of that guidance, the amendment was tabled to make it plain that the 1996 Act will remain the same for Scotland, which can amend it in any way it likes or leave it as it is.
	I hope that this amendment is right. I am slightly surprised that the powers of government did not enlighten us on this point and that we bumped into it only lately. Unless I am told by the Minister that we have got it wrong and that we should be dealing with Scotland as well, I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I confirm that the noble Viscount's interpretation is correct and that the amendment should therefore be passed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Astor of Hever: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 19, leave out "one month" and insert "12 months"

Lord Astor of Hever: As the Bill stands, if it receives Royal Assent the Act will come into force one month after it is passed. The amendment seeks to delay enforcement of the Act until 12 months later. It is vital that sufficient time is given for the establishment of the authority. The process includes consideration of the appointment of chairman of the authority by the Secretary of State; the consideration and nomination of members of the authority by the list of organisations in Schedule 1; and the logistical and administrative aspects relating to the functioning of the authority, which could include decisions on premises, communications systems, meeting dates of the authority and so forth.
	Once the authority is established, appropriate time will also be needed for it to consider all the existing bodies involved in customary and lawful activities to recognise the proper authority for each particular activity. It will also allow those bodies that do not already possess a code of conduct to produce one to cover their activities. A delay of one month before the enactment could result in a period of disorganisation and confusion. There is always the possibility of vexatious prosecutions taking advantage of new legislation before the authority is fully established and competent.
	A proper length of time following enactment can only benefit animal welfare and the clarity of the law. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and the Committee will be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Donoughue: This is a practical and helpful suggestion and a great improvement. From my point of view, it is completely acceptable.

Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Contracting Out (Local Education Authority Functions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003

Lord Davies of Oldham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Andrews, I beg to move that the order be approved. The order is made under provisions in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The order amends the Contracting Out Order 2002 which noble Lords will remember debating on 28th March last year. It was the last item of business on Maundy Thursday, but that did not prevent the House having a full debate on the issues. This order is a minor extension of that.
	Before the 2002 order was enacted, LEAs were restricted from contracting with any other body to deliver services that required the exercise of discretion in individual cases; for example, duties to secure school attendance for pupils not receiving suitable education. Such contracting was possible under a direction from the Secretary of State only when an LEA was not delivering on its statutory functions. LEAs did not have the option of contracting to obtain access to a wider pool of expertise or to obtain better value for money. That is why we consulted on, and then made, the 2002 order, which listed the 103 functions that an LEA may voluntarily contract out to improve its services.
	It is important to note that although contractors may carry out functions on behalf of LEAs, the LEAs remain ultimately responsible and accountable for all the contracted out functions. They continue to set direction and strategy, the implementation of which must be reflected in their contracts. Contractors may take on functions such as consulting on and implementing local authority strategies and policies.
	In consultation last year on the draft first order, most respondents welcomed the freedom and flexibilities offered by contracting out. The main order came into force on 1st April 2002 and several LEAs have since been considering exploiting the opportunities it provides. Mindful of the anxieties often expressed from the Opposition Front Bench of the untold burdens on local authorities and schools of excessive bureaucracy, we have not undertaken surveys or used other bureaucratic means to find the number of LEAs using the order. It is early days: contracting out takes time for local consultation, member agreement, and tendering and drawing up a contract which ensures the LEA's accountability is as clearly set out as the contractors' remit.
	However, several LEAs have contracted out the provision of support services to schools. Many LEAs, particularly smaller ones, face problems of insufficient capacity to deliver some of their administrative functions. One LEA in particular is soon to enter into a partnership with a private provider to create a joint venture company to deliver the full range of LEA services to schools. We will be interested to see how the additional capacity to be released by the engagement of the private provider will improve services to schools.
	The option of contracting out the delivery of these services allows authorities to source the best provision from a competitive market. In addition to achieving best value through partnership working, the LEA will free up resources that can be used for its core functions of strategic management and planning. We have provided guidance to LEAs on voluntary contracting out and are updating this in response to the feedback received.
	This order has a simple purpose: to update the 2002 order with three new functions created or amended by the Education Act 2002. First, the order enables a local education authority to authorise a contractor to co-ordinate school admission arrangements in its area between itself and those maintained schools which are responsible for their own admissions. LEAs already have the right to contract out the administration of admissions functions if they so wish. Giving LEAs the opportunity to contract out arrangements for co-ordinated admission is a logical extension of that. The processes are similar. Only the administration may be contracted out. Decision-making will remain with the LEA. As much of the admissions process is purely administrative—for instance, sending out consultation letters and collating responses, and administering a database of applications and potential offers—we can se no reason why LEAs should not be given the opportunity to contract out these administrative functions.
	Secondly, the order allows LEAs to contract out the review of the sufficiency of childcare provisions for their area and the provision of a childcare information service. Contractors could entirely run the local children's information service and carry out early years and childcare audits. We have recently published comprehensive Sure Start guidance for authorities to follow on their strategy and delivery of childcare. We are also providing funding of some #31 million for childcare information services.
	Thirdly, the order allows an LEA to engage a contractor to gather and provide copies of the consistent financial reporting returns of maintained schools to the Secretary of State. The LEA may contract out only the administrative function, and the responsibility for the accuracy and submission on time of those returns remains with the LEA. The duties imposed by Section 44 of the Education Act 2002, and the subsequent consistent financial reporting regulations, fall on the governing bodies of maintained schools. They must submit their CFR returns to their LEA on the date it has set. The LEA then checks the returns and sends them to the Secretary of State.
	That explains the three main functions in the order. It is an enabling measure and therefore does not force LEAs to contract out if they do not wish to do so. It allows local education authorities to secure better-value services for their schools and the local community. LEAs may not voluntarily contract out their most important strategic functions, and they retain responsibility and accountability for the functions that they may contract out. The order promotes partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors in trying out new and better ways of delivering services. It has been welcomed by the LEA sector and places no new requirements on it. We believe that it is an efficient way to proceed. The order makes three minor additions to the 103 functions already in the first order. Therefore, I commend it to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his description of the order and for the explanation of what it is designed to achieve. As I understand it, this is the continuation of a process initiated in 2002, when 103 activities that could be contracted out by local education authorities were identified. Now we are adding to those a further three.
	As a principle, we on these Benches appreciate that contracting out can be a highly beneficial process because it improves efficiency. In the case of LEAs, contracting out can also achieve great cost savings, and for that reason we shall not resist the order. However, there are a few matters on which I would like reassurance from the Minister.
	What has prompted the Minister to single out these three areas as candidates for contracting out? What take-up by LEAs is anticipated and at what cost saving? Is the Minister confident that the costs saved will not be outweighed by the inconvenience of providing a contractor with all the information that he requires?
	In addition, I am concerned about whether safeguards are in place to ensure that that delicate line between policy and administration is not violated. The Minister says that the former remains the responsibility of the LEA and that the latter can be contracted out. But how can that demarcation be sustained and guaranteed? Surely the issue is not as black and white as that, with contractors across the country accepting greater and lesser degrees of responsibility and some sailing closer to the policy boundary than others.
	It seems that the direction in which we are heading—I should be interested in the Minister's opinion—is that, wherever savings can be made, the entirety of the LEA's administrative role will be able to be contracted out. That will leave local education authorities with only a narrow policy role. Can the Minister tell me how far down this road we are already and how much further he plans to go?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for having explained the order to us. We shall not oppose it on these Benches. However, I also want to raise a number of questions about the order.
	First, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, in saying that we wonder what use will be made of the three additional functions. To date, in the debate that took place in the House of Commons, the Minister was able to talk about three authorities which had made use of the contracting-out procedures in relation to the 103 separate functions that we gave them last year. The Minister explained that the process obviously takes time.
	Equally, we gave the authorities a vast range of functions that they could contract out and only three have taken that up. One, as the Minister will know as it is his beacon authority, is my own authority of Surrey County Council. I point out that the other two authorities are Conservative. Surrey County Council has been a beacon authority for the Government and a Conservative authority in leading this contracting-out procedure.
	Because the Minister spoke about general contracting out, he will know that Surrey is now proposing to contract out a whole range of services. That business is going to a leading defence contractor—namely, Vosper Thornycroft. Some people in Surrey County Council have wondered what competence a defence contractor such as Vosper Thornycroft might have in relation to the provision of education services. However, the company is getting round that issue by employing a great many people who were previously employed by the local education authority in Surrey County Council. That is all well and good because it means that they will continue in employment and receive higher salaries, which is also extremely nice for them. Vosper Thornycroft is employing them back into the services of Surrey County Council at—with a profit on top—considerably greater expense. Therefore, one wonders what the cost-benefit analysis of the whole procedure might ultimately be. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
	We also question how many authorities will go through with these procedures in future. I want to take up the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, concerning the boundary between the decision-making issue, which clearly still lies with the local education authority, and the whole question of contracting-out procedures.
	Consultation among parents in relation to admissions procedures is contracted out. Perhaps I may point out that admissions is a highly sensitive area within local authorities, as the Minister well knows. The process of consultation is also obviously highly sensitive. When one reports back on the consultation, who draws up the report? I believe that the procedure is sometimes quite difficult. The officers draw up the reports, but is there really virtue or advantage in having a completely separate organisation to send out all those pieces of paper and collate the returns? Whoever collates the returns also needs that information if they are to advise the authority on the decisions that it should be taking. If, in this extraordinarily sensitive issue, an officer is to write a report on the process of consultation and on the views expressed, he will want to see the whole range of returns that have been submitted and feel—I believe the term is "internalise"—the information contained in the consultation process. Therefore, I wonder how far one can draw boundaries between these matters.
	I also noticed that responsibility for the accuracy and submission on time of the accounts remains with the LEAs. If the LEAs must check their accuracy and timely submission, what virtue is there in contracting out? Therefore, I return to the central question: is there any purpose in these regulations?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords opposite. It will be recognised that this order is a minor addition to the order of last year. Last year we identified 103 functions that could suitably be put into the voluntary framework—I stress the word "voluntary"—of which the local authorities would have the right to avail themselves if they so wished.
	We have added three areas to those contained in the 2002 provisions that, after consultation, we consider can usefully help with the ability to develop contracts—the main point made in both contributions from the Opposition Benches. They are areas related to establishing clearly in a contract the boundaries of policy and decision taking—responsibilities of the LEA—and the bureaucratic and administrative processes. The requirement is that the contract has to specify those matters with the utmost clarity.
	At this early stage I am open to the challenge of what benefits can be established from the process thus far. I shall make the obvious point that it is still early days and it takes time for contracts to be established so we do not have a track record to which to refer. But it will be recognised that there are bound to be start-up costs. At this stage it is difficult, on the basis of experience already accumulated, to establish value for money.
	However, the point is obvious and relates to a whole range of other areas where such contracts have been established. Specialist organisations can bring to a function on which a local authority's ability may be limited a level of expertise acquired from operating in other areas. That would enable both parties to draw down wider resources and experience and, if necessary, they can see that their own administrators are closely involved in the exercise.
	I appreciate the point in regard to Vosper Thornycroft. We all know of its reputation in the area of defence, but it will be recognised that the aspects of its expertise which are being drawn down with regard to these particular contracts will be, of course, administrative expertise and bureaucratic expertise.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the Minister that in some senses its organisation and its management expertise was not always regarded as being necessarily of the highest calibre. It is having to buy in the educational administration expertise to cope with the task.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I would be more than a little surprised if an organisation that is so remote from the world of education did not have to buy in a certain degree of educational expertise to fulfil such a function.
	There is a gain to be made from bringing in organisational and administrative expertise. Local authorities have an ultimate responsibility to their electorates. A failure with regard to such a contract inevitably would rebound upon a local authority which has to take ultimate responsibility for everything that is done in its name. As a consequence, it is clear that a concept of these permissive functions is faith in the local authority to be able to make a judgment about best value. One may say that a number of local authorities or the majority of local authorities will not see gains from this permissive legislation, but it is quite clear that local authorities and the education world are proceeding with great care and caution. We have not had rapid development against the 2002 order for all the reasons that have been rightly identified in the contributions made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Sharp.
	I recognise that this is an area in which we are still testing the waters. That is not to say that the issue of public/private partnerships has not brought significant rewards elsewhere in the public service. But in an area that is as significant as those that we are debating today, and particularly in the area that relates to education activities by local authorities, we recognise that, first, local authorities are rightly jealous of their records in the past. Secondly, local authorities will be mightily concerned that the clear issues of the policy for which they are responsible, and for which they are answerable, are absolutely central to the contract. That is why the contracts are being drawn up with great care. It is also why we are moving slowly in this area against a background, as rightly identified today, of educational objectives of crucial importance to our nation. Such educational objectives can be arrived at only by responsible authorities who, when they subcontract, must ensure that the contracts adequately fulfil their obligation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Common Fisheries Policy: EUC Report

The Earl of Selborne: rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Progress of Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (25th Report, HL Paper 109).

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, it is tempting to sum up the report quickly by saying, "Too slow; too little; too late". I thank those who have helped the committee to produce the report: our specialist adviser, Professor Shepherd; our clerk, Tom Radice; and our tireless research assistant, Pamela Strigo. We were very well served. It is a great regret that the late Lord Perry of Walton, a co-opted member of the committee, is not with us today. We shall miss his contribution.
	Perhaps I may detain your Lordships for a moment. To measure the progress of reform it is necessary to review the past few years. I chaired an inquiry by Sub-Committee D on the mid-term review over 10 years ago. Then it was clear that the failures were already self-evident. That was 10 years into the common fisheries policy. There was too much capacity—too many ships—trying to catch declining stocks. There were multi-annual guidance programmes which were designed to try to deal with the situation, but in a perverse way they achieved an increase in capacity by subsidising modernisation. That takes some achieving—to end up with a policy that results in the opposite of what was intended. There was also an inability to control effort; a lack of enforcement; a failure to adhere to the scientific advice; and total allowable catches were invariably fixed at or beyond the safe limits. There was also what is called technology creep, which means that industry becomes ever-more efficient with modern equipment; and a failure to measure environmental impacts.
	All of that produced a sorry story and it compared unfavourably, to say the least, with our neighbours in Europe such as Iceland, Greenland, Norway and the like. Admittedly they have a more simple administration—they administer their own fisheries—but nevertheless they proved that they were more flexible and able to act with great immediacy. That is not to say that they were entirely successful—they were not. But they made the approach of the CFP bureaucratic, slow and ineffective by comparison.
	The outcome of the mid-term review 10 years ago or more was that there was clear agreement that a completely different policy would be needed by December 2002, if not before. There was a long period of wide consultation—three years running up to March 2001—and much agreement from everywhere that something quite different would be needed in the second common fisheries policy. Sub-Committee D produced another report. In it we were a little stronger than we were the first time around. We were pleased when the Green Paper from the Commission was published in March 2001 because we reached the same conclusions on the need for a radical reform. We need to cut capacity. That is so obvious. If there are too many vessels in Europe with declining stocks, however one tries to persuade people not to go to sea or to have various technical measure to make life a little harder, such as mesh sizes and so on, the size of the fleet must ultimately be controlled. That is expensive. One has to decommission and do so effectively. It had not been done.
	One also has to work with other EU programmes. The EU, from Rio onwards, has had commendable programmes on sustainable development and environmental framework programmes. Yet the common fisheries policy, which, after all, addresses a very large part of the environment, fails to have any obvious linkages to those programmes. Such issues were recognised in the Green Paper. By December 2001 the first proposals for long-term recovery programmes—particularly for cod and hake, which are the two most susceptible stocks with which we are concerned in the United Kingdom—were published for discussion.
	I should remind noble Lords—I am sure they do not need reminding—that while the common fisheries policy has totally failed on stocks such as cod and hake, it is not all bad. Herring and mackerel, which went through an appalling period 20 or more years ago, have achieved a sustainable level of catch. The take is usually about 25 per cent of the biomass spawn. I am sorry to use the jargon, but noble Lords will get the drift of what I am saying. That compares with something like a 150 per cent take from the 1970s onwards for cod. Noble Lords can see why we have trouble with cod and hake: if one consistently takes 150 per cent of the biomass spawn, over a period one will run into trouble. Again I compare that figure with Iceland which sets its total allowable catches at 25 per cent of the assessed spawning stock biomass.
	We have always failed to grapple with these issues, although of course every December at the Fisheries Council we have had to impose more and more draconian cuts on total allowable catches (TACs), simply because of past failure to address the issues. A long-term management recovery programme is needed. It needs to be supported by socio-economic programmes which recognise the harsh impact and the adverse consequences on European communities, which, after all, are the ultimate losers of the policy's failure.
	I move on to May 2002. The Commission produced what were called the road map proposals. Again they were very welcome but not to everyone. The so-called "Friends of Fishing" countries—we refer to those in paragraph 6—were in denial. They continued to be very critical of what were seen to be extremely uncomfortable proposals.
	The road map programme tried to move away from the highly political yearly negotiations on catch limits and to take greater account of eco-systems. It sought to put in place long-term management systems, which are not dependent on last-minute decisions on total allowable catches at the December Council meeting. However, inevitably, last December's Council meeting was a highly political and highly charged debate and the outcome was unsatisfactory for those of us, including Her Majesty's Government, who recognise the wisdom of the Commission's proposals. We state in paragraph 7:
	"The reformed CFP is the result of over four years of analysis and consultation, but it has in our view been emasculated by the back-sliding compromises made by the Council".
	Box 2 on page 9 sets out the three new regulations which were agreed at that December Council meeting, the most important of which was the new basic regulation. It is described more fully in Box 3 on page 10. That basic regulation, so far as it goes and so far as it has been enacted, is very commendable. It seeks a strong commitment to the protection of the marine environment and a simpler fleet policy that puts responsibility for matching fishing capacity to fishing possibilities on member states. It proposes the establishment of regional advisory councils, which we very much welcome. It also suggests that where stocks are falling below safe biological limits, they must be managed by recovery programmes. All that is needed, and what we and others have asked for, is simple, transparent and bold measures which at last address these fundamental issues.
	Since then progress has not been impressive. On the recovery programmes, which are perhaps the brunt of the issues arising from that new basic regulation, proposals for cod and then hake were published in May this year. That is listed in Box 1 on page 6. They are very complicated—a bureaucratic nightmare—and certainly will not win the hearts and minds of the fishing industry.
	The proposals were discussed at the July Council meeting. Perhaps not surprisingly they were noted and it was decided that more discussions were needed. At the September Council meeting last month fisheries did not even get a mention. So noble Lords can see that we are not moving very fast.
	I am clear in my own mind—perhaps I am naive, but I am sure your Lordships will understand—that what is needed is a very simple solution which people can understand and which is transparent. Therefore, people will recognise that however sharp or draconian the proposals might appear, at least there will be rough justice. Why not, for example, just halve everyone's effort of 2002? We know, after all, what the fishing effort was in the year 2002. Just cut it all by half in each area for all gears and vessel types. At least people would understand that. It may not be possible, but that is the issue that one addresses. Should noble Lords think that the ratcheting up of total allowable catches every year is having the desired effect, I just report from the compliance report on cod and hake stocks, which came with the bundle of documents referring to their recovery programmes. It states:
	"Despite the TACs for these species being reduced by 40% from 2000 to 2001 the services of the Commission concluded on the basis of an analysis made by its inspectors that fishing effort or the catch rates in the fisheries concerned had not been significantly reduced in 2001".
	In other words, the Ministers sit there making all these brave decisions about cutting TACs and doing this and that, while on the ground, or rather in the sea, it does not have the slightest effect. People continue to catch because of economic pressure. If one has a ship and is trying to make a return and one thinks that the enforcement is uneven, which it clearly is, to say the least, then one will catch beyond the quota or non-targeted species.
	The most shabby compromise of all made at that December Council meeting—it was forced on the Council by the blocking minority of six countries, the so-called "Friends of Fishing"—was the concession to continue to give subsidies for the renewal of fishing vessels under conditions set out in Box 6 on page 18 of our report. These subsidies can be paid up to the end of 2004. Just think about that: we recognise that we have a chronic problem and we are still subsidising people to modernise their fishing vessels. No wonder our neighbours around the European Union do not take us seriously. It is unbelievable that we should still be subsidising the modernisation of fishing vessels in some member states—and I hasten to say that our own fishing industry does not benefit from that. We stated in our report:
	"We regard this as further evidence of the continuing lack of political will by the majority of the Council of Ministers to support genuine reform of the CFP".
	Regional management is seen widely as crucial to solving some of the fundamental problems of the common fisheries policy. We were encouraged by the proposal to have regional advisory councils. That is of vital importance because it will bring fishermen into a degree of involvement in the management of fishery stock. It is urgently needed, but, alas, we can detect no sense of urgency in the setting up of these regional advisory councils or in determining their powers, who will appoint them and so on. It is deeply depressing.
	We hoped that the establishment of regional advisory councils would enable the Council of Ministers to focus on medium and long-term strategy, rather than getting bogged down in yearly, highly political negotiations on total allowable catches and quotas. If we consider Australia, New Zealand or the United States, the depoliticising of fisheries management has been a key factor in achieving more sustainable fishing practice. If any management system needs depoliticising, it is that of the European Union.
	In Chapter 3, we refer to the economics of fisheries and suggest—this is perhaps a statement of the obvious—that until we address the fundamental economics of fisheries, we will never move away from over-exploitation of a common resource from which each individual fisherman is trying to extract an economic return. Property rights are being used elsewhere and, in the long term, will be an ideal solution. Such property rights could be territorial rights, individual catch quotas or community fishing rights.
	However, there is no prospect of agreeing the allocation of such property rights within the European Union—I suspect, even between Scotland and England—at present. To do that, we need much more data than are available. In the Government's response to our report, they agree that there is a dire shortage of economic data. So the first thing we must do is to supplement the rather meagre information provided on a haphazard and voluntary basis to the Sea Fish Industry Authority. Something inexpensive but much more authoritative must be produced.
	Incidentally, in the long term, we need much more research on what we mean by ecosystem management. We have to think only of the permanent debates about the predation of seals or the influence of the taking of sand eels to recognise that we know little about the basic facts of what impacts on fish stocks and how fishing impacts on other forms of biodiversity. In the short term, we will not be able to agree on property rights; in the long term we simply must.
	The Scottish Executive hopes to remove about 70 vessels under its present decommissioning scheme costing #40 million, to which it is adding another #10 million in transitional support. It remains to be seen whether that will be sufficient in Scotland to make an impact on recovery of cod stocks and, of course, that does not affect the rest of the United Kingdom. The consequences, whether in Scotland or England, of those overdue measures as a result of the failure of the common fisheries policy to reduce capacity are dire for the fishing industry. Whatever euphemism we use about reducing capacity, we are actually talking about removing jobs. The impact is of course on fishing communities around the coast.
	That returns me to the EU structural funds. We recognise what a low priority fisheries or coastal society have at present in the distribution of structural funds. We strongly support the Commission's proposals to explore the possibility of decoupling the financial instrument for fisheries guidance from fishing activity in favour of investment in coastal communities. If we are to tackle that problem, there will be considerable European-scale funding implications for those communities.
	About two or three years ago, the Commission realised that the common fisheries policy was a failure and came up with far-reaching proposals. A blocking minority of member states, in denial about the scale of that failure, has sought compromises and delays. That is what is happening. Recent Council meetings give me no confidence that there is any sense of urgency. The fishing industry deserves better from its Council representatives, from the Council of Ministers. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on Progress of Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (25th Report, HL Paper 109).—(The Earl of Selborne.)

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in congratulating my noble friend Lord Selbourne and his Committee on the interesting report that they have submitted for our consideration. They have done important work in highlighting a vast range of problems. The content of the report makes rather depressing reading. My noble friend and his Committee produced an earlier report on the subject. I know that the Government had also been hoping for much more advanced action on this front than has been possible. I think that all noble Lords will deeply regret the action of what my noble friend referred to as the blocking minority, which has prevented what should have happened by now.
	I want to focus on what may seem to be a somewhat narrow aspect of the Committee's work, but one that is none the less important: the effects of by-catch, especially on cetaceans. The European Commission and the member states have a legal and political obligation to protect cetaceans. Article 11 of the Habitats Directive requires:
	"Member States shall undertake surveillance of the conservation status of cetaceans".
	Article 12 stipulates:
	"Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection"
	of those animals, including a system to monitor their incidental capture or killing, so as to ascertain what further research and conservation measures are needed.
	On 20th December last year, three new regulations were agreed by the Fisheries Council. Regulation 2371 sets obligations to minimise the impact of fishing on marine ecosystems. Article 3 of COM185 states clearly that fisheries management shall be based on the principle that,
	"absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and non-target species and their environment".
	As box 2 on page 9 of the report, to which my noble friend has already drawn our attention, shows, the Commission has proposed an action plan. It states:
	"As part of this Action Plan, in the Summer 2003, the Commission will propose measures to minimise by-catches of cetaceans in fishing-gear".
	Those Council regulations have been welcomed, but effective action has been frankly disappointing. As the Joint Nature Conservation Committee made clear in its valuable written submission and evidence to the Select Committee, there is a weakness in the regulations in the,
	"lack of explicit tie-in to many other relevant EU marine initiatives, including the Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries, the 6th Environment Action Plan, the European Marine Strategy and objectives on issues such as cetacean bycatch (regulations on this have been promised for some time)".
	An early draft of regulations on reduction of small cetacean—dolphin and porpoise—by-catch was available last December. However, small cetacean by-catch remains unsustainable in a number of fisheries. It is estimated that tens of thousands of cetaceans are dying in fishing nets in European waters each year.
	I am indebted to Liz Sandeman, the energetic co-founder of The Marine Connection, a charity dedicated to the protection of whales and dolphins in the United Kingdom and worldwide, for informing me of the alarming and increasing scale of the slaughter of cetacean animals.
	It became apparent earlier this year that small cetacean deaths, nearly all of them common dolphins, in Cornwall and Devon alone were up approximately 33 per cent on the previous year. Nearly 7,000 harbour porpoises are caught annually in Danish North Sea gillnet fisheries and 1,000 in the United Kingdom. Many of the porpoises, whales and dolphins are killed in trawl nets. Up to 50 dolphins may be taken in a single tow. The most destructive of all the pelagic—that is to say, mid-water—trawlers are the pair trawlers. Scottish, English, French and Dutch pair trawlers fishing for sea bass in the Western Approaches tow nets of gigantic proportions. As many as 10 jumbo jets could easily fit inside one net.
	The extent of that indiscriminate slaughter is, I know, fully recognised by the Minister for Fisheries, Water and Nature Protection, Mr Elliot Morley MP. In his foreword to the Government's excellent consultation paper, UK Small Cetacean Bycatch Response Strategy, published in March this year, he stated that he had been concerned,
	"for a number of years about the numbers of dolphin and porpoise casualties".
	He acknowledged that there is,
	"a commitment on behalf of the European Commission to bring forward measures to reduce cetacean bycatch but"—
	this is the depressing part—
	"it may be some time before this is translated into action".
	That gloomy conclusion is now reinforced by the findings of your Lordships' committee.
	It is regrettably the case that the Commission's proposals were fiercely opposed by some EU countries. As my noble friend has already pointed out, paragraph 6 of his committee's report described how:
	"The six so-called 'Friends of Fishing' countries—Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland—decried the measures as draconian".
	No wonder the Minister found it all "agonising".
	To their credit, it appears that the Government are not prepared to wait on the EU but will press ahead with interim measures of their own. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told me recently in answer to a Written Question that I had tabled, the consultation period on the Government's White Paper concluded on 13th June, and Ministers are analysing the responses with a view to taking decisions on the way forward later this year. Already there are research trials into the use of separator grids and other net modifications. The Government also recommend further trials on the use of acoustic deterrents in pelagic trawl fisheries. I suggest that that needs to be done with some care.
	I am sure that the noble Lord will have seen the report in The Times yesterday, headlined:
	"Fatal trauma of whales deceived by navy sonar".
	The effect of low-frequency activated sonar on cetaceans has been known for some time—certainly since 1996. Dr Caroline Lucas, a Member of the European Parliament, has done valuable work to draw the attention of the public, the European Parliament and the Commission to the appalling damage that low-frequency activated sonar appears to cause. That certainly could be one of the main causes of cetacean death. I know that low-frequency activated sonar (LFAS), as it is known, is of great importance in our defence. It is used for submarine detection. But there is every indication that much more powerful LFASs are being brought into action. That is very dangerous.
	However, I readily acknowledge what the Government are doing. They seem to recognise that there is now a need for urgent further action. It is clearly advisable that action should be based upon reliable scientific knowledge and evidence. However, the pursuit of statistics must not become an end in itself. The need for continuing research, which is important, should not become the excuse for inaction. I take some comfort from section 5 of the Government's consultation paper. While accepting the need to support the planned survey to provide updated abundance estimates of those small cetaceans believed to be subject to high levels of bycatch, they recommend,
	"that methods to identify trends in populations of harbour porpoises, common dolphin and bottlenose dolphin be identified and set up as a matter of urgency".
	I am less sanguine, however, about the suggestions on monitoring. Too much faith is being placed in voluntary action. More robust action is needed. In particular, legal measures should be introduced immediately to require a much higher percentage of the fishing effort to be covered by onboard observers, with penalties imposed where there is obstruction or intimidation.
	In conclusion, let me repeat the words that I quoted at the beginning. Article 12 of the habitat directive calls on member states,
	"to establish a system of strict protection"
	of these animals. Since, as the Select Committee found, there is regrettably too much evidence of the lack of any real political will to address the major problems of fisheries management in Europe as a whole, will the British Government now press ahead and do as much as they possibly can, as a matter of urgency, on their own? The cruel and needless slaughter of these fascinating, sensitive and magnificent animals must stop.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, today's debate is entitled "Report of the European Union Committee on Progress of Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy". A cynic might assert that progress is, at best, slow and reform negligible. But common sense tells us that, despite what can only be described as disappointing progress to date, there is potential to avert a real disaster—but only if common sense and a common purpose hold sway.
	The problems surrounding the European fishing industry are certainly not new. They are well laid out in the report published in May this year. In brief, there is too much capacity in the European fishing fleet, set against too small and dwindling fish stocks. There is very low profitability within the industry, with meagre income levels, usually in areas of poor employment opportunity. Add to that the traditional pattern of family-based fishing activity and the cycle of deprivation becomes accentuated. The product, fish, is relatively cheap, with low profit margins to fishermen, and appeals only in a very narrow range to the consumer—mainly, in this case, cod and hake.
	All in all, it is an equation of decline. To an objective outsider, all that adds up to an impoverished future with little prospect of optimism. In reality, fishermen, in order to make a decent living, are forced to overexploit the fish stocks, even against their better judgment.
	Our report says:
	"When many fishermen have access to the same fish stock, each has a reason to grab as large a share of the potential yield as possible lest the other fishermen reap all the benefit".
	The outcome of this strategy is that the more aggressive fishermen plunge heedlessly for a quick return and quick profit, ignoring all the warning signs. They are frequently aided and abetted by irresponsible media reporting which throws into doubt scientific and expert witness, with a large slice of xenophobia thrown in for good measure.
	Unless the existing pattern of over-fishing is heeded, the inevitable outcome will be the reduction or even collapse of fish stocks, little or no net economic benefit and the eventual implosion of the European fishing industry. Yet that doomsday scenario is set against the clearest warning, not only from scientific evidence, but actual examples such as that of the Canadian fishing industry.
	For centuries, the Canadian Grand Banks were prime fishing grounds. Atlantic cod fed entire communities. The factory trawlers that moved into the area exacted a dreadful toll. Stocks collapsed and in 1992 the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans closed the fishery. In November 2002, all the remaining cod fisheries were closed down as the stocks showed no sign of recovery. That is still the case today. All the wide-ranging scientific evidence that we took as a committee underlined the growing threat to cod and hake, in both the short and long term. The Minister, Elliot Morley, could not have been more explicit or realistic:
	"If you look at the actual figures in relation to cod stocks, you can see a very clear decline over the past 20 years, and a trend that goes straight down. The recommended safe level or minimum level is about 60,000 tonnes of biomass and scientists would ideally like to achieve 150,000 tonnes of biomass, so you can see how far away we are from that, and how the stocks are very much on the brink. It was an agonising Council—"
	he was referring to the council of December 2002—
	"with very difficult choices to make. In the end, however, I thought that they were choices that I could not duck in relation to the scientific evidence".
	The Minister was perfectly correct. The final outcome of the negotiations proved, as has already been said today, extremely disappointing.
	If we add to the equation of decline the fact that we currently have a common fisheries policy which subsidises fleet modernisation and even the building of bigger and better fishing vessels, then we are right to blink in disbelief. Thus the Gordian knot grows even more complex. It is a ludicrous situation with member states vying with each other to pressurise the Commission to relax its constraints. The Commission and, indeed, Commissioner Fischler, take an entirely sensible line with this problem. The terms set out by them are realistic and sound. They endorse, indeed promote, the long-term prognosis of decline in the fish stocks, proposing very stern measures to curb over-fishing.
	What really disappointed our committee and what is clearly stated in our report is how the Commission was hobbled and seriously compromised when the Council of Ministers bowed to the special pleading by member states. Of course, such poor performance leads to criticism of the EU as a whole and the Commission in particular—an open goal for Eurosceptics. However, just imagine the mayhem of individual countries going it alone. The Commission may not yet have delivered the hoped-for outcome, but without its mediation I suspect that there would be no prospect of a sensible outcome.
	Other factors affect the industry. Our Committee deplored the level of allowable catches—TACs—that have been set far too high to achieve stock recovery. Bizarrely, funds will continue to be made available for new and more efficient fishing vessels until the end of 2004. Unless we see a move towards the Commission's original proposals, which, for example, see allowable catches on a multi-annual basis rather than year by year, and unless we institute effort controls—allocation to each member state of kilowatt days measured by the multiplication of engine power by days spent fishing—the outcome will prove disastrous. We must also have the certainty of enforcement, satellite scrutiny and rigorous inspection, which have also been mentioned, in order to underpin the recommendations of the Commission.
	It was no surprise when the six so-called friends of fishing countries—France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland—cried, "Foul", against the Commission's proposals, but what was quite shocking was the inability of the council to see beyond the sectorial interest being used to emasculate the proposals. We were heartened by Elliot Morley's responses both orally and in written evidence to the committee. The Minister made plain his support for the Commission's strategy. We also welcomed his support for the strengthening of scientific evidence on marine ecosystems as a basis for advice and action.
	During the gathering of evidence for our report, some members of the committee visited the Scottish fisheries to hear the arguments first hand. As a result of their findings, our report stresses the need for transitional aid to the fishing industry as part of the recovery programme. We emphasise that compensation should be time-limited for those fishermen who are forced not to exercise their access rights.
	We have some cause for optimism in this area. The European Parliament voted in February 2003 to set up a special 150 million ecus emergency fund to support the white fish sector. The proposal would allocate 50 million ecus to transitional aid for forced tie-up schemes in 2003, and a further 100 million ecus in 2004 for golden handshakes, early retirement and retraining grants.
	In our conclusion, we welcome the strong commitment in the new basic regulations. However, we deplore the fact that no firm recovery plans for the key stocks of cod and hake are yet in place. We are pessimistic, thinking that the Commission's strong line will continue to be thwarted by some member states, deaf to the evidence before them. We regret the missed opportunity to downsize the European fishing fleet yet again. A summary of our conclusions on pages 28 and 29 of our report makes uncomfortable reading. The prognosis is clear. Unless we take action now, we will see a repeat of the Canadian experience around our own shores.
	This is the second report on the common fisheries policy undertaken by Sub-Committee D. Veterans of the first report, of which I am not one, tell me that very little progress has been made in the interim. I very much hope that if I am part of the next report in a few years' time, we will be able to bring back to the House a more positive picture than the one that we offer noble Lords today. If not, it may well prove to be too late.
	Before sitting down, I add my thanks to the people who helped us to produce this report. It was well organised and a very rich experience for someone serving on that committee and dealing with this report for the first time. I also thank all the people who came to us to give evidence. Lastly, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for the way in which he chaired the committee with such skill. He had an adept way of dealing with everything.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I speak in support of the recommendations in the report of the European Union Sub-Committee D. I congratulate the members of the committee and the noble Earl, Lord Selbourne, for painstakingly and patiently covering the ground—or should that be seabed—yet again. They captured the frustration felt by conservationists and fishermen alike in this country at the Commission's failure to come forward with workable long-term proposals to achieve sustainable management of European fisheries. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, who served on the committee, asked me to say how disappointed he is not to be able to be here today to take part in this debate.
	The common fisheries policy, after years of failure to achieve sustainable management of European fisheries, was due for a substantial overhaul by December 2002, as we have already heard. Things looked promising for the industry, an industry that has provided my family with its living for over 400 years. In May 2002, as a result of special pleading by some member states, the Commission's proposals were seriously compromised by the outrageous decisions taken by the Council.
	What do we do, short of resigning from the common fisheries policy—a thought near the hearts of many in the dwindling fleet of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? We heard my noble friend Lord Selborne eloquently outline his committee's conclusions and its sensible and reasonable recommendations. We must urge the Government to press hard for those changes, if the common fisheries policy is not to become complete nonsense.
	I want to drive home one of the most fundamental recommendations for change, a change without which the European Union itself will surely founder. It relates to enforcement. In Great Britain, we are so good at enforcement, and we are drowning in a sea of European Union legislation that we enforce when many other member countries do not. There is no punishment for non-enforcement. Our English common law system works well for us. Our laws come from the common demands of our common people. By common consent, we agree to our law and agree that it should be enforced. We are in a union that is essentially based on Roman law. New legislation flutters down from those furthest from its consequences. There are ideas, aspirations and general hopes that may or may not be taken up by the common people.
	We cannot continue to run a common fisheries policy like that. It is not fair to our people, who understand fair play. As my noble friend Lord Selborne recommended, we must insist upon a community fisheries control agency, which would ensure equal enforcement on all fishing vessels in European Union waters. The still massive Spanish fleet is in our northern waters for the first time. Will it stick to the rules? Will it stick to its quota? Spain's two fisheries officers—perhaps it is now one or two more—sit in Madrid while our home fleet is policed into oblivion. Without equal enforcement on all fishing vessels of the European Union, the common fisheries policy will cause serious doubt about the possibility of the Union's long-term success. In this country, we are brought up to believe that cheats never prosper. We are brought up to enforce our common law. Will the British Government act to protect our people and our livelihoods by insisting that the creation of the agency be progressed with all haste?
	Are quotas to continue as a mechanism? The system does not work in environmental terms. In particular, it does not work in Cornwall, where I live. Successive governments have not put right an early mistake that we made: tradable quotas or quota hopping. I declare that I am patron of the Duchy Fish Quota Company. The company was set up to try to raise money locally to save our Cornish fishing quota. It raises money through charity to buy the quota allocation and lease it back annually to local fishermen. That helps to meet the needs of young fishermen who cannot hope to bid for those precious quotas on the open market.
	Over the past five years, Cornwall has lost #4 million worth of fish quota. As boats have been decommissioned, Defra's rules have, in effect, allowed a free trade in the British fish quota. That means that fishermen from outside Cornwall can purchase outright quota that was originally allocated to local fishermen. Spanish-owned boats that have passed the tenuous economic link regulation allowing them to be registered in Britain take advantage of that situation. The boats fish British waters, and the vast majority of the income derived from the quota-hopping boats is realised in Spain, where the catch is generally landed and processed.
	In the present climate, UK fishermen find it difficult to fish the year round on their meagre quota. What steps are the Government taking to reverse the trend of selling UK quota to other member states, who will pay anything to get them? It leaves a generation of fishing families with small inshore boats unable to compete and watching their fleets and communities die out. Within 20 years, Cornwall will lose nearly all its inshore fleet. Cornwall is poor enough; it needs its Government's help. I hope that the Minister will reassure me today. Cornwall and I anxiously await his reply.
	In the mean time, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Selborne. I had the privilege of sitting with him the last time that we examined the policy. I congratulate him and his committee on a thorough job and commend the report to the House.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I congratulate the committee on being so tenacious in returning to this issue yet again. I was on Sub-Committee D the last time that we considered the report. At that time, I felt that the report would lead on to some sort of action, so I shared the committee's great frustration that progress had been not only slow but virtually imperceptible and that, meanwhile, the state of the fish stocks had deteriorated so much further. We know that most stocks are close to collapse. We need only look at the fishmonger's slab to see that. The last report had a vivid cover showing a huge fish, which was by-catch and had to be thrown back, and a small fish, which was allowed to be caught. That situation has continued.
	In its evidence, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea said that a reduction in fishing levels of between a third and a half was needed now. "Now", I think, means not in two, three, five or 10 years. Yet, experience with the previous report and with this one suggests that the European Union thinks that we have that length of time to take. The common fisheries policy shows the European Union at its worst, which is a great shame. In every other area of environmental action, the European Union has been at the forefront of moves to get member states to do something about their habitat, their water, their air and the pollution of their seas. It is upsetting to see how, in the common fisheries policy, the European Union gives in yet again to member states with a particular interest.
	That is understandable, when the economic fragility of coastal communities puts them under such pressure. I was interested to read in the report that catching employment in those communities had fallen, on average, by 22 per cent and employment in processing by 14 per cent. It is not as though the do-nothing attitude maintains the same employment; employment is still falling, and the reasons for that are not being addressed. I urge the Union to produce the sort of policies for fishing that it has so successfully produced in the rest of its environmental agenda.
	I turn to some specific matters in the committee's report. I agree with its comments on regional advisory councils, particularly the comment in paragraph 49 that they would be "of vital importance". I agree that the way in which the councils are established should be a matter of "considerable urgency". When the report says "considerable urgency", that phrase should be taken to mean real-world time, not the sort of unreal time in which the common fisheries policy has been conducted to date.
	The committee's suggestions on the size and process of regional advisory councils are also helpful. I hope that this Government and the EU will take particular note of that. Regional advisory councils will play a crucial role in bringing together different interest groups, which should have a common aim of sustainable marine ecosystems. The aim should not be for a return to "fishing as usual"; that is, fishing as it was in the last decades of the 20th century.
	Chapter 4, paragraph 87(v) of the report refers to the importance of supporting long-term development of alternative employment. It states:
	"It is extremely important to find ways of supporting the development of alternative employment opportunities in areas affected by long-term decline of the fishing industry".
	On turning to the Government's response to the report on the common fisheries policy from another place, I found that they think they are doing all right in that type of support. The Government believe that their regional strategy is being implemented through regional development agencies in England and that it,
	"enables focussed support to be provided to fishing dependent communities".
	That is far too complacent because RDAs have very different targets, which are more concerned with promoting new employment and not alternative employment. The evidence from the South West, where the RDA has a coastal and market towns initiative, does not seem to be addressing the issue of alternative employment with anything like the vigour that the Government—perhaps through their response to that report—assume that the RDAs are doing. I urge the Minister to check on that.
	I should like to turn now—incidentally, because it falls within the Minister's remit—to the issue of the Appledore shipyard in north Devon. It is not an alternative employment to be created; it is an alternative employment which exists but is under threat and is likely not to exist shortly. The Government, in their joined-up thinking role, should consider that the Appledore shipyard is in a prime position to help in their off-shore renewables requirements programme. It has considerable expertise in building the infrastructure—namely, the barges and so forth—needed to implement the programme of off-shore wind farms. As the Government have seen fit to bail out British Energy, surely they could help this shipyard. My honourable friend in another place, John Burnett, raised this subject. I would welcome the Minister's comments.
	Finally, I turn to the issue of discards. What is the Minister's opinion on this matter raised in evidence given to the committee? It seems that the Norwegians have a scheme that any fish caught and landed on deck must be kept. Fish cannot be thrown back, however small. No matter whether the quota has been filled, the fish must be kept. That forces an attitude of responsible fishing: it is clear what has been caught. Perhaps it might answer some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eden, in his extremely powerful speech.
	Some of those measures would force us, in our home waters, to address fishing with an ecosystem attitude. I know that the Government have said in their Seas of Change intentions that they will regard marine ecosystems in a positive way. However, that remains a wish list. There has been no legislation for an ecosystem approach; there has been a bit-by-bit approach so far. Although I understand the Minister cannot comment on what will be in the Queen's Speech, I hope that there will be something in respect of marine legislation.
	In the mean time, I hope that we will not be back here in two years' time discussing yet another report from the excellent Sub-Committee D bewailing the lack of progress. I commend the tenacious attitude of the committee. If there is no progress, I hope that it will readdress the issue in two years' time and say so. I congratulate the committee on an excellent and hard-hitting report.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Selborne and his committee for their detailed work in producing this important report. Like others, as I read through its pages, I became a combination of extremely frustrated and very depressed by the lack of progress on the reform of the common fisheries policy. At a time when, increasingly, some species are so at risk, there appears to be a lack of will to take action—that is, urgent action. There is evidence of the council backing down from such action as recommended by the Commission.
	As my noble friend said in his opening remarks,
	"Too slow; too little; too late",
	which has been reiterated by other noble Lords.
	On page 5 of the report, the committee states:
	"A promising package of proposals adopted by the Commission in May 2002 was seriously compromised by decisions taken by the Council in December 2002, as a result of special pleading by Member States. The Committee has no confidence that the new basic CFP Regulation agreed at that meeting, despite some positive features, will meet the objectives of sustainable fisheries and prevent irreversible decline in important stocks unless it is substantially improved".
	Those are very damning words.
	In his opening comments, my noble friend identified several issues, of which I should like to refer to four. First, he clearly stated that there is need for a long-term recovery package and that we should look, particularly, at the amount of biomass spawn taken. Secondly, he reiterated that we should move away from the yearly setting of allowable catches. Thirdly, he said that shabby-deal concessions were being made to continue to pay money to modernise fleets. The noble Lord said that that is "unbelievable"; I say that it is unacceptable. Fourthly, he said that there is a need to continue research, particularly into the hoovering of sand eels and other species in dire straits.
	The report reflects the alarming state of fish stocks—in particular, that of cod and haddock—as well as the fishing capacity of the Community fleet, which far exceeds that required for harvesting available fish stocks in a suitable manner. The report continually refers to the improvement of efficient fishing methods as "technology creep". We all want to see improvements, but when attempts are made to take more fish than there are available, we must question whether that is wise. Poor enforcement controls have been insufficient to ensure an equitable approach across the Union. As my noble friend Lady Wilcox said, it is not fair. We urgently need an effective control agency.
	These are just a few of the issues highlighted in the report, which is summed up on page 8, paragraph 7. The committee was scathing in its comments. It states:
	"The reformed CFP is the result of over four years of analysis and consultation, but it has in our view been emasculated by the back-sliding compromises made by the Council".
	It is not acceptable reading. We must do something about it.
	However, it is true that some action has taken place. The Minister will be pleased that I am not damning everything. There has been a move to establish fisheries protection zones. Fishing effort has been used as an instrument in fisheries management. There is a plan to eradicate illegal fishing. There are provisions to establish regional advisory councils. I am pleased that that will bring fishermen directly into the negotiations.
	There is, too, a plan to move forward towards a reduction in discards of fish, an issue about which all noble Lords feel strongly. Lastly, the creation of a single inspection structure is envisaged to ensure the pooling of Community and national inspection and monitoring resources. As other noble Lords have pointed out, it is no use if we do all this while other states do not. These actions must be undertaken uniformly throughout the Community.
	The committee acknowledges that new Regulation 3760/92 is more comprehensive, but it does not deal with three key areas: structural policy, markets and international policy. It calls for better international research and long-term management programmes and concludes by saying:
	"the fatal weakness of the new legislation is that no deadlines are set for when recovery plans must be established".
	If there has been any change in that position, I should be glad to hear about it from the Minister when he comes to wind up the debate. The report goes on to state that:
	"Without firm deadlines, the negotiations could continue for a very long time, as is suggested by the still on-going negotiations over the cod and hake recovery plans".
	The Commission promised a "definite cod recovery plan" by the summer. Can the Minister explain what is set out in that plan and how it deals with the recent scientific findings which suggest that fish seem to band together rather than move around in small shoals. Many fishermen maintain that, when they do find fish, they find a great many and so the shortage is being overstated. Further research is needed to clarify the position. However, scientists believe that while individual shoals are large, they are few in number with long distances in between. How does the definitive plan cope with this situation?
	The committee suggests that direct conservation measures such as the control of fishing effort coupled with appropriate technical measures such as limiting mesh size, closed areas, closed seasons and so forth, should be introduced:
	"We urge the Government to press the Commission, and to argue in Council, for the implementation as a matter of urgency of a properly designed and well-considered system of effort control, to work alongside the TACs [total allowable catches] and quotas wherever possible, but especially where precautionary TACs are in force".
	The report records its unanimous view that the generally excellent and widely supported proposals made by the Commission to reform the CFP have been emasculated by the Council of Ministers which, as other noble Lords have already said, was held hostage by some member states acting in the perceived short-term interests of their fishing constituencies. Can I ask the Minister to state the Government's view as it was placed before the Council? Further, what do the Government propose to do now to protect our fishing industry and, more important, our fishing grounds?
	I wish to put to the Minister a series of direct and practical questions concerning what the report quite rightly reflects as the loss of jobs that has affected many people in this country. Does the social security system support the way fishermen are currently being forced to work? Does the new working tax credit and children's tax credit cut in and out in line with fishermen's earning patterns? Does housing benefit apply to erratic earners? Lastly, following on the point made by my noble friend Lord Eden, has the Commission published its proposals, promised for summer 2003, to ensure that catches of cetaceans are minimised?
	What unilateral steps are the Government prepared to take if, say, by December 2003, the Fisheries Council has still not produced a simple, measurable, appropriate and time-tabled plan? What steps are the Government taking to track down illegal fish landings and to apprehend those responsible? Are those measures common to England, Scotland and Wales, and to the other European states?
	The report touched on the possibility of the better utilisation of satellite monitoring. I believe that satellite monitoring should be extended right now. I ask the Minister: are there any reasons why that is not being done immediately? Finally, the most criticised aspect of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance—FIFG—has been the funding earmarked for the fleet renewal and modernisation programme, mentioned by other speakers in the debate. I believe that the programme should be totally halted right now. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why that cannot be done.
	Only a month ago I paid a visit to Billingsgate fish market and had the joy of seeing a wide variety of fish on display and available to us. But I fear for the future of fish stocks more generally, let alone our own cod and hake stocks, if we do not act on the recommendations of this excellent report produced by my noble friend.
	Once again I thank my noble friend, the members of the committee and all those who have worked so hard to put together this report. I hope very much that it will receive a positive response, not only from our Government—I realise that the Government can do only so much on their own—but also from the Community as a whole. Again, I ask the Minister to comment on the extremely important points raised by my noble friend Lady Wilcox on the selling of fish quota, which is particularly relevant to Cornwall's inshore fishing fleets.
	This is a good report. I took it away with me when I stayed in Wales for a week. However, all I can say is that I found it a depressing read. I should like the Minister to tell us what action he and his Government are going to take in the future.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl, all the members of his committee, its staff and advisers, who have clearly done a very thorough job in producing the report which forms the basis of this debate. I think it is fair to say that all the contributors to the debate, members of the committee and Her Majesty's Government share a general view of the European approach to fisheries. I was glad that a number of speakers referred to the work of my honourable friend Elliot Morley in this respect. Until recently he was the Minister responsible for fisheries for six rather difficult years. The post of fisheries Minister is always an uphill struggle in Europe, given the common fisheries policy structure that we inherited when we joined the European Union and which has yet to be reformed as effectively as all noble Lords in this House would wish.
	I think that we all agree that there is an absolutely urgent need to conserve many of the fish stocks in EU waters and to promote the conservation of stocks beyond those boundaries. In relation to some stocks, most particularly those of cod in some of our key fisheries, the situation has become extremely urgent. Far too few young fish are surviving to maturity. The other side of the equation is the need to protect the future of a viable fishing industry and the communities around our coastline still based on fishing activities. It is also important to do that in a way which protects the marine environment more generally.
	I turn first to the December deal. Many speakers have expressed serious disappointment with the deal, and I understand and share some of that concern. However, if noble Lords will excuse the maritime pun, the deal does indicate something of a sea change in the approach of the Council of Ministers to fisheries policy. Commissioner Fischler has been working very hard on the proposals to put to the Commission and I endorse the comments that he has presented the Council with some very serious choices. While it is true to say that we did not achieve all that both we and the commissioner would have wished, the December deal marked a change of direction and all the realistic negotiation objectives were achieved; that is, given the views of the other member states, we secured the best deal possible. It is not the best deal that is desired, but it is probably the best possible deal. Furthermore, under the new structure of the CAP, it does place social, economic and environmental sustainability at the heart of its policy, which was not the case over the previous 30-odd years of common fisheries policy. Therefore we have seen a move forward, in particular to respect scientific advice and to manage stocks accordingly on a multi-annual basis.
	Regrettably, it is also the case that not all the scientific advice made available has been accepted in the so-called "friends of fishing" group of nations, an ironic title which, as the noble Earl pointed out in his opening remarks, is in a state of denial. The advice is also not wholly accepted by certain elements of the British fishing industry. That is why research statistics and so on are needed in this area to continue to reinforce the evidence which, despite the overwhelming scientific view and, as my noble friend Lady Billingham indicated, the tragic and drastic example of Canada which has been before us for more than a decade, not everyone, by any means, accepts.
	There is also a commitment to improved enforcements. Rules must be applied rigorously across the EU. We strongly support the Commission's action plan for improving compliance and co-operation between member states. I shall say more about that and the proposals for the joint inspection structure and fisheries control agency which is to be established next year, the feasibility study for which is due to begin about now. Clearly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, indicated, enforcement is a major issue.
	As regards capacity, clearly a great deal of the previous aids to the industry have been perverse in their effects in increasing the capacity while, at the same time, destroying some of the traditional vessels and employment in the industry in Europe. Subsidies for vessel building must be ended by 31st December 2004. While the noble Baroness and others say this is too late and, obviously, the earlier the better, the fact is that until a very late stage in the December negotiations the group of six were blocking such an early commitment and were looking to continue until 2006 and beyond. It was therefore a breakthrough to obtain 2004 as the deadline. This means that most continuing aid for vessel construction will end within a year from now. We have not provided grant aid for vessel construction in the UK for many years and we regret that other member states have not followed our example.
	In her closing remarks the noble Baroness asked about the deadlines for recovery plans. There are no specific deadlines in the agreement but the regulation commits the Council to introducing recovery plans whenever stocks are shown to have fallen outside safe biological limits based on the science to which we are now committed. So, as soon as that commitment is triggered, the Commission is under a duty to bring forward proposals promptly and the Council is under a duty to take note of such proposals and to implement them.
	There are also measures for dealing with conservation emergencies, which now apply to threats to the environment as well as to the fish stocks. This, again, is a move forward. A number of noble Lords referred to the establishment of the regional advisory councils—again a major step forward. We welcome also some of the action plans under the new framework in regard to discards, improving the science and integrating environmental protection requirements into the CFP. All of these new provisions add up to a major change in direction and intensity of the CFP.
	Clearly these new initiatives need to be followed through by Council action and decisions which affect the situation. We needed a much more robust framework in which to argue these decisions. We have now got it and we are now able more effectively to take on those member states which, shall we say, may have a less urgent or robust view on the need for action. Some of these issues will come before the Council this month or next month through to the December Council.
	So far as concerns the UK, another significant contribution to planning for the future will be from the No. 10 Strategy Unit's fisheries project announced at the end of March. This will take into account the findings of the Select Committee report. Its terms of reference are to develop a strategy for the sustainable future of the UK marine fishing industry. It will be collecting information and reporting within the next few months.
	Returning to the question of enforcement, clearly the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Byford, strongly emphasised the importance of this issue. I agree. The United Kingdom spends #24 million on enforcement, and it has often been remarked that our enforcement is rather better than that in many other areas of the EU. Enforcement co-operation between member states will be much stronger under the new CFP. The Council is to establish a set of sanctions to be applied by member states for serious infringements on the basis of Commission proposals. The joint inspection structure and fisheries control agency will be subject to an immediate feasibility study and it is to be hoped that it will be established next year. So the policing of and sanctions on member states are being tightened up.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked about quotas and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, indicated her interest in the situation in Cornwall. We have always attempted to ensure that the economic benefit of quotas which are allocated in the CFP to the UK should benefit the UK and its fishing areas. We now require all vessels benefiting from the quotas to have a demonstrable economic link to the UK. This is a significant change following the previous government going down the wrong road and being overturned in the European courts. There will be a fairly tight regulation of future sales of quotas. Although it will not go as far as discriminating by nationality—which would be contrary to the basic precepts of the EU—it will require economic benefits to accrue in the UK.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, is that system already in being? If not, how advanced is it?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot give the exact date but it has been a good four or five years since it was in being. I shall write to the noble Baroness about the precise point of legal application.
	Clearly that does not address all the problems of sales of quotas because quotas have a price and people have to be able to afford that price. But, legally, whoever the buyer is and at whatever price, they have to demonstrate a benefit to the UK.
	As regards conservation, the Select Committee pointed to the lack of success in mixed fisheries and in conserving stocks through the use of tax and quotas. Clearly we need to go further. As the noble Earl indicated, cod stocks are the most depleted. For these, we need interim EU measures in place in the North Sea and the West of Scotland which restrict the number of days at sea and the type of gear used. In July, the Commission produced new proposals for the long-term measures to promote recovery. As noble Lords have pointed out, it is true that the Commission was a long time in producing these proposals, but it also true that the interim measures which set out significantly to reduce effort on cod are now in place and need to be followed through.
	As we said in our response to the Committee's report, the Government agree that recovery plans should be established for cod and hake. We took that line last year and we continue to do so. We hope to see progress on that issue as rapidly as possible. We must ensure that the new regulations are likely to be effective and properly enforced.
	We also need to ensure that the size of the fleet is in balance with the available stocks. We have been very positive in this regard in terms of the decommissioning grants we have made available in England and Scotland. In addition, at the start of this year the department announced further funding of about #50 million to reduce the size of the UK fleet.
	That will obviously have implications for the fishing communities. My noble friend Lady Billingham and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, were particularly concerned about the coastal rural communities in which most of our fishermen live. While a smaller fleet is potentially more viable, it will require local communities to adjust to lower levels of employment. This is where the regional policy and the role of RDAs and so on come in. It is important that we ensure that the RDAs are focused on this issue in relation to the relatively few, but nevertheless often quite remote, coastal towns which have historically depended on fishing.
	My noble friend Lady Billingham asked why we were not providing the same transitional aid in England as in Scotland. The aid that Scottish authorities have provided was to get over the present difficulties, whereas now we are looking forward. We cannot really talk in terms of transitional aid in respect of a long-term decline in the fisheries sector. The Government have also consulted on the future structural fund policy, and the best way forward seems to be in an EU framework, which provides for help to those areas most hit by the decline of the sector.
	The regional advisory councils, to which many noble Lords have referred, will be international bodies. All stakeholders can participate, but they must be regionally based bottom-up organisations developed and run by their own members. It will take a bit of time for those bodies to operate, but we need to give our full backing and ensure in particular that the progress already being made with international groups of stakeholders in the North Sea, the Irish Sea and the South West results in effective organisations. The Commission is likely to produce a formal consultation on that matter for a council regulation in the very near future.
	One important matter that I need to spell out relates to the environmental aspects of CFP. There has been quite a bit of progress on that front under the new CFP since December. In July, we gained Commission action to take emergency measures to protect the Darwin Mound coral reefs from trawling. Also in July, a regulation to tackle the problem of shark finning was adopted by the EU. To address the central point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eden, the Commission has introduced a draft regulation to address small cetaceans by-catch. That will obviously be a major part of the overall approach to by-catch, which is a very serious problem.
	We welcome the draft directive, and the UK is in the vanguard of the member states attempting to deal with the unacceptable dolphin and harbour porpoise death in fishing nets. We need to take action at an EU level, as the measures provide. In the mean time, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden, said, Defra has successfully run trials for a grid system capable of saving dolphin lives in the sea bass fisheries. We are considering promoting that more widely.
	The noble Lord, Lord Eden, also referred to the potential dangers of using sonic technology to deal with that issue. We must bear that in mind in relation to smaller cetaceans, as well as to the larger animals to which the report referred.
	It is clear that there is already a growing list of EU measures and proposals that expand on the new framework under the CFP. We look forward to that being intensified and built into a new eco-system-based approach to fisheries management, delivering the environmental objectives as well as the sustaining, and reversal of decline, of stocks.
	Fish stock management operates on long timescales, and we need to look well ahead. Long-term sustainability is a key aim for the Government, and the work undertaken by the Committee gives us a basis for approaching that. The work will be taken further by the strategy unit. At European level, we are rapidly approaching this December's Fisheries Council. The UK is far from being alone in seeking a long-term solution in the interests of a healthy fishing industry as well as for a marine environment. However, in order to have a long-term future, we need to preserve and reverse the decline of stocks now, which means that, at the very minimum, the effective enforcement and success of the decisions taken in December needs to be built on, and built on rapidly.
	I conclude by thanking again the noble Earl and his committee for the report, and all noble Lords for participating in this informative and worthwhile debate.

Lord Brightman: My Lords, I should like to ask a question about an area on which I am totally ignorant. Does the farming of fish have any impact on the preservation of stocks of wild fish? A Member of your Lordships' House told me recently that, if I went to Billingsgate, almost all the fish I saw would be farmed fish. Presumably, that would exclude fish that were trawled; I was told that the rest of the fish were farmed. Does that have any impact on the problem that we now face?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the bulk of farmed fish will be fresh water fish. There is no significant farming of cod, for example, which is one of the species with which we are most concerned in the context of the debate. With most deep sea fish, there has been some indication that the Norwegians in particular are moving towards substantial cod fish farming, too. However, that requires vast areas to make it successful, and it has had little impact.
	One area in which wild sea fish have been affected by farming stocks is one that noble Lords have debated on several occasions, relating to North Sea salmon. There are probably environmental problems affecting North Sea salmon in any case, and we had a debate on that subject only a few weeks ago. Clearly, the vast bulk of salmon sales are now of farmed rather than wild salmon. Therefore, in that area there has been a significant effect. However, most deep sea fish are fished rather than farmed.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I thank all those who have participated in this very depressing debate. I owe an apology to my noble friend, as clearly our report ruined her stay in Wales.
	I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response. I have much admiration for the way in which Elliot Morley negotiated. It is a thankless task being a fisheries Minister, for reasons that the Minister has explained, and we all recognise the way in which Elliot Morley tried to bring an element of reality into Fisheries Council meetings.
	I wish to pick up on the observation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on fish farming. When we considered the matter in a previous report, we were aware of the problem of feeding fish stock that is being cultured. The fish have to be fed on something, and one is unlikely to be able to get the food from a land-based crop. Effectively, one hoovers up sand eels to feed the fish, which ends up making the problem worse. However, long-term research is being done.
	The prospects of farming cod did not seem at all realistic to us. Farming salmon is much more common but, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, there are considerable cultural problems.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, referred to veterans of two reports. I admit that I am a veteran of four reports over 11 years, and I fear that I get ever shriller and more exasperated. However, there is an element of urgency. If the report and this debate have persuaded others, particularly the blocking minority referred to so often, that there is a desperate need for the European Union to get its act together with fisheries and act responsibly, perhaps we have not wasted this Friday morning and afternoon, and there will have been some advantage in having depressed ourselves so extensively on the subject.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sustainable Energy Bill

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Maddock.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Annual reports on progress towards sustainable energy aims]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 5, at end insert "with particular reference to achieving a reduction in such emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010 based on 1990 levels and maintaining such reduction after 2010"

Baroness Wilcox: I should like to preface my remarks on this and the other amendments that I shall be moving by repeating the protest made by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon at Second Reading, a protest made also by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. The way in which the Bill has been dealt with first in another place and even more importantly in your Lordships' House means that there is a major risk that this important Bill will not receive proper scrutiny. In the other place the Bill was received with enthusiasm by the Minister, who then proceeded to introduce a series of amendments which completely emasculated it. In the words of my honourable friend the Member for Christchurch in Committee in another place, the Government completely filleted the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was less flamboyant in his phraseology. He contented himself with saying—if he does not mind my quoting him—that,
	"one could not avoid coming to the conclusion that the Government might be wishing to draw back from some of their commitments entered into in the White Paper".—[Official Report, 12/9/03; col. 613.]
	The parliamentary timetable under which we have to work means that we are faced with the alternatives of take it or leave it. Either we accept the Bill in its current form—which waters down the original Private Member's Bill from a form welcomed on all sides and by the Minister himself in the other place, to such an extent that the original Bill is almost completely unrecognisable—or we risk losing the Bill totally. Well, this House is not, at least for the moment, a rubber stamp for the Government. I hope that it will never be so.
	While we can still justifiably claim to be the finest revising Chamber in the world we will continue to call on the Government to come here and account for their actions, in this case to explain their reasons for resiling from the original promises that they made at Second Reading of the Bill in the other place. They said:
	"we agree that there is a need to report on policy goals, as required by clause 1";
	that is, Clause 1 as originally drafted by the sponsor and not the filleted form we are now asked to approve. In the same passage, the Minister said:
	"The Government have committed ourselves to producing an annual progress report, and we are willing for that to become a legal requirement".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/03; col. 599.]
	We on these Benches are in some difficulty. The Bill clearly needs amendment if only to restore it to the state in which it was first presented to another place and the form which the Government said they welcomed. However, we realise that if we press our amendments, the Bill which we support in principle will be lost. It is therefore certain that I will not pursue any amendment to a vote. However, I do expect a considered and credible answer to my amendments from the Government today.
	With those prefatory remarks which I hope will explain the philosophy behind all of my amendments, I turn to speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 together.
	Amendment No. 1 simply adds the words:
	"with particular reference to achieving a reduction in such emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 based on 1990 levels and maintaining such reduction after 2010".
	Those words echo the Government's own stated objectives as set out in the White Paper and in the Labour manifesto and numerous ministerial pronouncements. Those added words put flesh on the Government's preferred wording which simply require the Government to report progress towards cutting the UK's carbon emissions, with no statutory indication of what the UK's objectives might be. As drafted, the Government could produce a report which on the face of it bore no relationship to the 20 per cent objective. The Government could simply report without so much as a blush that they were now 0.1 per cent toward their commitment. This amendment will make the Government come clean on their progress or lack of it on the face of the report and not send us hunting out what would by then be an old White Paper to discover what the commitment actually was.
	Amendment No. 3 reinstates but to a much more modest extent the specific objectives that the sponsor of the Bill in the other place originally set out in his Clause 1(1)(a). They would create a meaningful report such as the Minister claimed in the other place the Government supported instead of the meaningless waffle that we are now going to be asked to approve. What is needed is for the Minister to explain to the Committee why the Government, while paying lip service to openness and frankness, declined to put into statutory form a requirement to report how close they have come to the objectives they have set themselves and the country. I beg to move.

Lord Ezra: I should like fully to associate myself with the preliminary remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and to support her amendments. Like the Conservative Opposition, we on these Benches are very concerned that the Bill has come to us in a form which has removed from it the objectives to which we consider the Government are firmly committed as a result of the energy White Paper. As we understand it, the Government object to having these commitments mentioned specifically in the current Bill. In those circumstances, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will in terms confirm the objectives which are contained in the White Paper and to which this Bill must surely relate; namely, the objectives for the reduction in CO 2 emissions, the increase in renewables and the increase in CHP. I will not spell them out; they are clearly stated in the amendment. What we would like to have is either for the Government to agree that those objectives should be stated in the Bill, or, if not, for the Minister to state clearly beyond any doubt whatever that the Government are firmly committed to those objectives.

Baroness Maddock: I have considerable sympathy with the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. As noble Lords will know and as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, the original Bill published by Brian White MP contained specific targets in relation to renewable CHP and carbon dioxide emissions. These amendments would indeed restore those matters to the Bill. However, I regret that it became clear during very protracted negotiations with the Government that they were simply not prepared to accept these specific targets on the face of the Bill. All those who have been involved in the Bill find that difficult to understand as the energy White Paper specifically commits the Government to reporting annually on those very matters.
	Nevertheless, with considerable regret, Mr Brian White conceded the point on Report. It had been made abundantly clear to him that to proceed with the clause as originally drafted would jeopardise the very future of the Bill. Indeed, as has already been said, we in the House of Lords reach a point where we either have a Bill as it is or we have nothing. It is very difficult in such circumstances to do what we would all very much like to do with the Bill. As I made clear at Second Reading, I share Brian White's profound disappointment at the Government's stance.
	We have been somewhat reassured by the Government that they would use the annual sustainable energy report required by the new clause to report on all 135 commitments in the energy White Paper. Like other speakers—and I shall perhaps spell this out in more detail than did my noble friend Lord Ezra—I ask the Minister for specific assurance again that the Government will report annually on progress towards the achievement of 20 per cent of electricity from renewable resources by 2020, the generation of 10 gigawatts of electricity by combined heat and power by 2010, reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 20 per cent based on 1990 levels by 2010, and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 60 per cent by 2050. All those aims were set out in the Government's energy White Paper. I therefore hope that the Minister can assure us.
	As for Clause 2, there was a difference at Second Reading about the Government's exact commitment in their energy efficiency aim. We hope that the Government are planning to deliver five megatonnes of carbon savings through household energy efficiency by 2010 and a further 4 million to 6 million tonnes of carbon by 2020 as specified in the White Paper.
	The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, gave slightly different figures. I have since received a letter stating that the figures were not as he said. However, today, so that there is no fear of confusion anywhere, I should like the Government to confirm the figures I mentioned.

The Earl of Erroll: Targets on the face of the Bill are a nice idea but the trouble is that a target is a target. It is not a crime to miss it. On the other hand, given that targets in other areas have gone wrong, I understand the Government's worry about having targets on the face of the Bill. However, if targets are not set, we do not know what we are aiming at and we may well miss them.
	My main point is that I am worried about references to certain technologies. Technology changes. We should not tie ourselves to existing technologies. For example, I note that there is no mention of multi-fuel fuel cell technology which could deliver great energy savings. Technologies are emerging which could help in this area. Sometimes one can restrict development in certain new areas by tying oneself to existing technology in current legislation. Although those matters should be referred to, the Bill should contain an open clause to include new technology at a later date.

Lord Whitty: I am not entirely sure whether it is in order in Committee to go over the ground that was covered in another place at various stages of the Bill. Therefore, I shall not necessarily respond to the comments made about the progress of the Bill, which was, after all, welcomed in its current form by noble Lords on all sides of this House albeit with some reservations. As we have just emerged from a debate on fishing, I should point out that the normal use of the term "filleting" means that one is left with the best part.
	The Government are not prepared to accept Amendment No. 1 partly for the reason that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, gave. Our targets in the energy White Paper relate to carbon saving. There are 135 different ways of meeting those. The market, changing technology and other factors will vary somewhat in terms of their achievements. Therefore, there is a degree of flexibility as regards the target. Tying it to specific individual targets—although there are some in the White Paper—is not necessarily the way to measure progress towards the overall objective. That is why our commitment to an annual report is stated in broader terms. Clause 1 as it stands already requires us to report on cutting carbon emissions, maintaining the reliability of energy supplies, promoting competitive markets and tackling fuel poverty. Therefore, we shall report on an annual basis on all of those main objectives, and we are happy to do so.
	The idea that the Government are somehow trying to avoid reporting annually on progress towards the important commitments and targets set out is not correct. I reaffirm—I shall do so in terms in a moment—all the goals, targets, aspirations, commitments and policies of the White Paper. Clause 1 obliges us to report on them. Through the Bill that will become a statutory duty. Brian Wilson, the then Minister for Energy and Construction, said at the first Committee sitting in another place:
	"It is inconceivable that we would report in a way that does not draw attention to, and reflect on, the progress that has been made towards those publicly stated targets. Frankly, if we tried to report in a way that did not measure our achievements against the targets, others would promptly do it for us".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee C, 11/6/03; col. 022.]
	I am happy to reconfirm those comments.
	As regards the objectives in the White Paper which will form part of the report, we have a Kyoto protocol commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008–12 and a national goal to move towards a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010. That has long been our objective. It is in the White Paper and it remains our objective. It will be the subject of annual reports.
	The energy White Paper went significantly further and set out our long-term goal of cutting UK carbon dioxide emissions by some 60 per cent by about 2050 in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That is a tremendous task that will require much policy input and a great deal of effort by industry, consumers and ourselves. That long-term target has an effect on the short-term targets mentioned in the amendment. We do not consider it necessary to insert in Clause 1 a specific reference to a 20 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2010. The reference to maintaining that reduction thereafter would be misleading and unhelpful. As I have just explained, the Government have set out their longer-term goal of going well beyond that target. The 60 per cent target therefore is the relevant target, not a series of 10 per cent targets. It would be misleading therefore to focus the report entirely on the 2010 or 2020 figures.
	On renewables, we have set a clear target of supplying 10 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. We have put in place a number of policies and expenditures in order to achieve that, for example, #350 million of direct government funding. We have been quite clear that we wish to double that 10 per cent target by 2020. We also have a firm target for CHP—good quality CHP capacity of 10 gigawatts by 2010. I believe that the noble Baroness mentioned that. That will prove a challenging target, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has pointed out in this House on a number of occasions, but it is a target to which the Government remain committed.
	If we pick out those targets as being the only ones specified in legislation that we should report on, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, big elements would be omitted. Energy efficiency measures will deliver a substantial amount of the carbon saving. We believe that energy efficiency can deliver around half the additional savings that we are likely to need by 2020: to be specific, a further 4 to 6 million tonnes—I hope this answers the noble Baroness's question—carbon annual saving from households by 2020 and a further 4 to 6 million tonnes annually from business and the public sector in that time-scale. That, however, is not mentioned in the clause as forming a significant part of the report. I do not think that specifying that would help.
	We also have targets on fuel poverty with which the noble Baroness will be familiar. Yet again I reaffirm that it is our intention to ensure that no household in Britain should be living in fuel poverty as far as practicable by 2016–2018. I refer also to our target for ending fuel poverty in vulnerable households in England by 2010. I am happy to reiterate here or anywhere else all of those commitments, but to specify only some of those in relation to the annual report does not seem helpful.
	As regards Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, I need to go back to the general objectives of the annual report which are: to look at the totality of progress on the White Paper; to determine whether the policies that we have enunciated there are achieving their objective; whether the individual goals, targets and aspirations expressed there are on course; whether there are new policies required to meet them; and whether there are changes in the national or international economic and environmental context that would require a change of direction or a change of policy in order to meet those overall long-term objectives. All that needs to be covered by the annual report. It must not be focused around the rather specific and partial elements that the amendments pick out. I therefore hope that we do not pursue them further, even if there were time to do so. The noble Baroness has already indicated that she regretfully accepts that we do not have that time.

Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his spirited defence of the Government's position. I have come to know him, and would not expect him to do anything else. We are all clear that we do not agree on the matter, and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: As the Minister said, he and I have just exchanged views on the fisheries report. As someone who knows how to fillet a fish knows, it all depends who is going to get the fillet and who will finish up with the frame with very little on it, which is exactly how I feel now. This is pretty shameful stuff. We will be judging against targets that will be difficult for us to find in future. I was interested to hear the Minister's reply, but I have not heard anything for which I had hoped. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, feels that he has had the confirmation that he wanted in terms, but I shall not press the amendments at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 23, leave out from "household" to end of line 24 and insert "which needs to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income on fuel costs to heat its home to 21 degrees celsius in the living room and 18 degrees celsius in occupied bedrooms"

Baroness Wilcox: Clause 1(1)(d) requires the Government to report on its progress in,
	"reducing the number of people living in fuel poverty in the United Kingdom".
	As drafted, the Bill purports to define fuel poverty. It is worthwhile looking at the words that the Government choose to use, which are that,
	"a person is to be regarded as living in fuel poverty if he is a member of a household living on a lower income in a home which cannot be kept warm at a reasonable cost".
	What is a lower income? Lower than whose? Do they mean someone in the Sunday Times richest 500 list, naming no names, or someone receiving less than the average national income? What about someone who is 10p a year above the average income? What is reasonable cost? Reasonable in relation to what?
	For the purposes of the Bill, what is required is a precise definition of the proportion of a person's income spent on heating his home that would constitute fuel poverty, which the Government promised to eradicate in one of their many pledges. This modest amendment does just that. It would be very nice if the Minister would simply accept it. I beg to move.

Baroness Maddock: The amendment is identical to one tabled by the honourable Member for Christchurch, Christopher Chope, in another place on Report. It introduces a specific definition of fuel poverty into the Bill.
	The common definition of fuel poverty, one used since 1988, is where households need to spend at least 10 per cent of their disposable income on fuel to keep warm. The Government's draft fuel poverty strategy, published pursuant to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, defined fuel poverty as where a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent of its total income to heat its home. That has been a point of disagreement between the Government and those who have campaigned on fuel poverty. Indeed, many MPs campaigned vigorously against it. The result was that the Minister then in charge, Michael Meacher, went out of his way to assure them that the Government intended to end fuel poverty on both definitions.
	People are obviously concerned about what the Government are doing. I hope that their position is still the same. I am not minded to have a definition in the Bill with which I do not completely agree. I know that other people do not agree with it either. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says, but I hope that the amendment will not be accepted. I do not intend to speak again to it.

Lord Elton: I am not really involved in such procedures but, as an interested spectator, I picked up the Bill to look for a definitions clause and did not find one. That is where one would expect to find elucidation of the subsection that my noble friend seeks to amend. Without her amendment, the subsection seems virtually meaningless.

The Earl of Erroll: The amendment is what drew me to take a look at the Bill. I fully understand the reason for wanting a definition, as it is a very good idea. However, if we heated our home to 21 degrees Celsius in the living rooms and 18 degrees Celsius in the occupied bedrooms, we would be bankrupt. That is extremely hot. I think of it as 70 degrees Fahrenheit in the living room, which is a nice warm summer's day in Scotland, and 64.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the bedroom, which is what we used to keep our living rooms at.
	At home, we keep to about 18 degrees Celsius in the living rooms and 16 degrees Celsius in the bedrooms. We sleep a lot better for it and it will kill a few more bugs. If someone feels cold they can put on a woolly jumper. That will help the farming community and, as long as it is a natural wool jumper, will not use so much oil, which is turned into the plastics for artificial fibres. If people want to have a definition of fuel poverty, I would highly recommend a slightly lower one. I cannot remember what every degree Celsius that raises the temperatures takes in energy and carbon terms, but it is quite phenomenal on a countrywide basis.
	Most offices are overheated. I certainly find this building quite warm most of the time. We are going overboard about heating.

Lord Elton: Would the noble Earl think that the amendment were good if the figures were altered to reflect the conditions in his home?

The Earl of Erroll: It would be useful to have a definition in the Bill, but it should not be set at such a high temperature. I do not call that poverty, but rather expensive luxury.

Lord Ezra: Nevertheless, we are concerned here generally with older people. This country's record of excess winter deaths is higher than any on the Continent, and there is no doubt that it is due to under-heated homes for the elderly. The elderly certainly require higher temperatures than the rest of us, in spite of what the noble Earl has said.

Lord Whitty: It has been an interesting debate on the temperatures that people prefer, which obviously vary according to the nature of the household, the age of the occupants, draughts and so forth. It is important that we do not have as tight a definition on the heat side as the amendment would require.
	There have been some quite complex discussions among the fuel poverty cognoscenti for a number of years about what constitutes income and fuel costs in this context. The fuel poverty strategy, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred, and the Government's annual report on that strategy use two different definitions because a consensus has not yet been reached. That is not an attempt to fudge the figures because, it is hoped, any changes in the income and cost side and the fuel efficiency side would move both sets of figures in the same direction. However, there is no standard definition of fuel poverty and at least two definitions are used in the Government's own strategy. Given the compromise of having two sets of figures, which have been accepted by those interested in fuel poverty, it would not therefore be helpful to adopt the amendment. I would not be prepared to accept the amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for that answer, which is now on the record. I thank my noble friend Lord Elton for his most helpful clarification. I was entertained by the interventions of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I hope that he does not invite me to stay with him in Scotland too often because I should freeze and have to bring my own "hottie" with me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Energy efficiency of residential accommodation: Secretary of State]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 2, line 4, at end insert "in respect of residential accommodation and at least one energy efficiency aim in respect of office accommodation"

Baroness Wilcox: In moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 to Clause 2 and Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 to Clause 3. Clauses 2 and 3 are identical, except to the extent that Clause 2 relates to England and Clause 3 relates to Wales. Clause 1(1) refers to the United Kingdom no fewer than four times in seven lines.
	The Government are claiming to have a uniform sustainable energy policy for the United Kingdom. It is therefore difficult to understand why it is necessary to legislate piecemeal as between England and Wales and to omit Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Government are sustaining problems that they have created for themselves by setting up three separate legislatures in addition to the Mother of Parliament.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 modify the subsections in Clauses 2 and 3 and leave out the restriction which limits the so-called "energy efficiency aims" created by the clause to residential accommodation. Why should the Government not have energy efficiency aims for industry and commerce? Have Ministers not seen office tower blocks blazing with light on every floor long after everyone has gone home? Have Ministers not stepped into offices which are heated to resemble Turkish baths in the winter and cooled to resemble refrigerators in the summer? I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, will agree with that. The waste of fuel in factories can be no less extensive.
	It is true that according to subsection (3) of the clauses, the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly may designate further efficiency aims. But that is just pie in the sky. In any case, legislation is not needed to enable a government to promote efficiency in any field whatever. Perhaps the reason why the Government want to restrict their obligations to produce an energy efficiency aim to residential accommodation is that householders are easier to bully than the world of commerce.
	Furthermore, under subsection (4) "reasonable steps"—whatever they may be—must be taken by the Government or the Welsh Assembly to achieve those aims. What are "reasonable steps"? Are they subsidies towards insulation or a limitation on the amount of permitted lighting such as was imposed on shops by the post-war Labour government, for example? No doubt the Government will frankly admit to the Committee that their energy efficiency aims are mere window-dressing and that apart from exhortations in the press they address home owners. They are neither prepared to impose obligations on industry to save energy nor to provide it with incentives to do so.
	Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 to Clause 2 and Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to Clause 3 are consequential amendments leaving out the word "residential". The sum total of the six amendments is to require the Government to have so called "energy efficiency aims" for all users and not merely impose obligations on householders. I beg to move.

Lord Ezra: There is no doubt whatever that homes in Britain are not as energy efficient as they should be. The White Paper was right to pay much attention to that. We are waiting to hear the measures the Government will adopt, apart from exhortation, to induce people to improve their energy efficiency. There is at present a Treasury consultation document, which must be answered by 24th October—and I hope to do so—suggesting specific ways, particularly of a fiscal nature, which might encourage people to improve energy efficiency in their homes. A great deal of importance will attach to that document because it will add substance to the Government's broad objectives in the White Paper. No doubt we shall have an opportunity to consider and debate that at a future stage.
	Of course, office accommodation must also be considered, and the White Paper refers to it. It mentions energy savings in the industrial and commercial sector, and I assume that the annual report will cover that area. Again, we would like the Minister to confirm that, although commercial and, indeed, industrial accommodation are not referred to in the Bill, the annual report will comment on the 135 objectives stated in the White Paper, which include energy efficiency in commercial and industrial accommodation.

Lord Whitty: The Energy White Paper includes sections indicating the savings required from different sectors of the economy, including the commercial and residential sectors. Clearly, therefore, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be covered by the annual report. The residential sector is picked out in this respect because the policies for achieving the energy saving objective will be different for the commercial and household areas.
	A number of existing policies relate to the household area, many of which are currently under review. Examples are: the Energy Efficiency Commitment, which effectively places a commitment on the fuel supplying companies for domestic purposes; the Warm Front programme, which, although a fuel poverty programme, also has effects on fuel efficiency; the consultation on fiscal measures, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred; and proposed changes in the building regulations. All those relate to domestic policy, the domestic sector and the achievement of energy efficiency in that sector. Therefore, it does not appear sensible to lump that sector together with the commercial sector.
	The signals that we intend to give, and the support provided to, the domestic sector are not necessarily the same as one would give to the commercial sector. Indeed, much of the energy saving within the commercial sector should come as a result of people considering energy costs as a contribution to their total costs and therefore to their profit. If the market were operating properly, many of the energy cost savings in offices, businesses and factories should be achieved through normal effective management. Nevertheless, as has been suggested, the policies—perhaps a form of the EEC, or whatever—for commercial purposes might also help in that respect. But they will not be the same as the policies which operate within the domestic sector.
	However, with regard to the central question, as we are still talking largely about reporting, we shall report on the commercial, business and industrial sectors' achievements in relation to the energy efficiency objective, as well as those of the domestic sector.

Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for the commitment to report on efficiency in offices. I believe we all agree that this is an important area. However, if one is sponsoring a Private Member's Bill, the wider the net is drawn, the harder it is to get a Bill through. I was the sponsor of the original Bill and in its original drafting I believed that including households was the most important step, particularly because of the fuel poverty suffered by many people in cold and damp homes in this country. I believe that that has been the driving force behind many people who are concerned in putting forward this Bill, as it was in the case of the Home Energy Conservation Act, which I sponsored in another place some years ago.
	It is a fact that in this country we have an appalling record of an increased number of winter deaths due to people living in cold and damp homes. We also have an appalling health record for respiratory diseases suffered by people other than the elderly. The best way to try to tackle fuel poverty is by making homes energy efficient. That is why this issue has formed the main thrust of the Bill. However, that does not mean that the sponsors of the Bill, myself or anyone else who takes part in its proceedings today do not recognise the problems caused by the amount of energy used in the office sector.
	Due to attempts by the sponsors of the Bill to ensure that it was in line with government thinking, the Bill as originally drafted sought to give statutory backing to the recommendations contained in the Performance and Innovation Unit's document—its energy review of February 2002. In that document, the unit specifically recommended that the Government should set a target of a 20 per cent improvement in home energy efficiency by 2010. It did not make the same specific recommendation for the office sector. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for that clarification and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 [Short title and commencement]:
	[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Energy efficiency of residential accommodation: National Assembly for Wales]:
	[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 agreed to.
	Clause 5 [CHP targets]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 5, line 4, after "2003," insert "or no more than three months after this section shall come into effect (whichever shall be the later),"

Baroness Wilcox: This is purely a drafting amendment to remove an anomaly from the Bill, an anomaly no doubt caused by the time that it has taken the Bill to find its way through Parliament. Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to make announcements about the very important combined heat and power targets before the end of 2003. Time flies and perhaps the Government have not noticed that we are almost at the end of 2003. The clocks go back in about a fortnight.
	Clause 5 comes into effect on a date to be prescribed by statutory instrument made pursuant to Clause 9(5) and in theory that commencement order could be made after the end of 2003. I do not suggest for one moment that that would be as a result of any bad faith, but it is something that could easily be overlooked. I would like to hope that the Government have their CHP targets sitting on the Secretary of State's desk waiting to be published before the ink on the Royal Assent to this Bill is dry. However, to avoid any possible embarrassing slip up, I beg to move this modest correction.

Lord Whitty: It is jolly decent of the noble Baroness to try to give the Government a little more flexibility, but I can assure her that in this case we do not need it. Irrespective of the passage of this Bill, we shall be making a Statement before the end of the year.

Baroness Maddock: I am pleased to hear that. I do not want to do anything that would slow this up in any way. I hope that the noble Baroness feels that she can withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: We just wanted the Minister to know that we are watching and reading every point through this long period. Of course, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Use of certain money held by Gas and Electricity Markets Authority]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 8, line 5, leave out "renewable" and insert "sustainable"

Baroness Wilcox: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together. They can be described as probing amendments. They are identical, replacing the phrase "renewable sources" with "sustainable sources". This is the Sustainable Energy Bill. The simple question is why is the issue suddenly being confused by this change in terminology? In the Bill as originally presented to the other place there was a Clause 8(1) in which "sustainable energy" was very comprehensively and cogently defined. That definition was dropped when the Government imposed its redraft on the reluctant sponsor. I can see no reason why in the interests of consistency the word "sustainable" should not be substituted for "renewable" in both cases. I beg to move.

Lord Ezra: I ask the Minister for some clarification. In Clause 7(5) there is a reference to "renewable sources", as the noble Baroness has just pointed out and in subsection (6) there is a definition of "fossil fuel". As the noble Lord will recall, I have a certain interest in fossil fuel and if clean coal technology were to be developed, as I hope it will be, and coal were to become a sustainable form of energy, I wonder why it could not be included. As far as I can see from these definitions, whatever happens to fossil fuel to make it sustainable, it would still be excluded from the Government's thinking.

The Earl of Erroll: I also wondered about this issue. On the question of farmers growing biomass for producing energy, I do not see why that would be excluded. I suspect that it is not excluded. I ask for clarification because Clause 7(5) states that,
	"'renewable sources' means sources of energy other than fossil fuel or nuclear fuel".
	I presume that includes things which are grown. The whole point is that this is a carbon cycle. Growing plants take carbon out of the air. Burn them and it goes back into the air. But as you grow them again it takes it back out again. Therefore, it is carbon neutral. Anything that is carbon neutral should be regarded as a renewable or sustainable source.

Lord Whitty: The clause is of course about the use of moneys rather than what is considered in the total energy policy. The moneys in the fund are provided to support the renewables section of energy, which does not include fossil-based fuels or nuclear fuel, whatever the arguments about either of those being sustainable in the long run. I do not particularly want to go into that debate now.
	Clearly, if we are trying to spend that money on a specific range of fuels, we would need to define them in the same way as renewables are defined elsewhere. To answer the point of the noble Earl, they include biofuels and biomass, but they do not include fossil fuel based technologies, whatever the other merits of those may be, and they do not include nuclear fuels. That is not to say that at various points consideration will not be given to technologies other than that renewables list. We can spend this money only on those technologies.

Baroness Maddock: I am content with the Minister's explanation. I would prefer the Bill to remain as it is. If we were to agree to these amendments others would be needed. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: I have heard the Minister's answer. I still think that this is a "sustainable" energy Bill. As I said when we started the Bill this afternoon, we want the Bill to pass, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Remaining clauses agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
	House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past two o' clock.